Loading...
T2 -Transcript February 17, 2021 HPC Hearing Aspen Historic Preservation Commission February 17, 2021 4:30 PM, City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 2 MS. TY: … for calling because I know it’s 1 important for -- we were trying to get everybody from the 2 neighborhood to be on but are you still calling -- asking 3 for numbers? I was not given an attendee code but I did 4 call in. 5 MS. THOMPSON: If you’ve -- if you’ve joined on 6 through Webex your name is automatically showing up. So, 7 we’re just calling out phone numbers that are -- that are 8 not already identified with a name. 9 MS. TY: Okay. Yeah, I couldn’t even join on 10 Webex. Okay. 11 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. 12 BRIAN: Did you call the 781 number? I didn’t 13 hear that yet? 14 MS. THOMPSON: You’re Brian. 15 BRIAN: Yep. 16 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah, we already have you. 17 BRIAN: All right. Great. Thanks. 18 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. All right. Paulette, 19 Peter, can you turn your cameras off for now while we 20 start the meeting please? 21 And do we have Amy? We have everybody from the 22 city here that we need. Right? We’re good to -- okay. 23 All right. I’m going to call this meeting of 24 the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission to order. We 25 3 have no site visits today. So, could we get a roll call 1 vote, Wes, please? 2 ROLL CALL 3 MR. GRAHAM: Scott. 4 MR. KENDRICK: Here. 5 MR. GRAHAM: Jeff. 6 MR. HALFERTY: Here. 7 MR. GRAHAM: Roger. 8 MR. MOYER: Here. 9 MR. GRAHAM: Sheri. Sheri. 10 MS. THOMPSON: No Sheri. 11 MR. GRAHAM: And Kara. 12 MS. THOMPSON: Here. Thank you. 13 MINUTES: 14 MS. THOMPSON: All right. We have some minutes 15 to approve from February 12th and January 27th. I was not 16 at one of those meetings. Did anybody have a chance to 17 review those minutes? Do you have any comments? 18 MR. KENDRICK: I move to approve the minutes. 19 MR. HALFERTY: I’ll second. 20 MS. THOMPSON: All in favor. 21 MR. KENDRICK: Aye. 22 MS. THOMPSON: Aye. 23 MR. HALFERTY: Aye. 24 4 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Moving onto public 1 comment. 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: 3 MS. THOMPSON: Is there anybody here from the 4 public not related to an agenda item tonight that would 5 like to make a comment? 6 I believe all the names I’ve heard are for 1020 7 Cooper. Amy, do you know of anyone who was going to call 8 in separately today? 9 MS. SIMON: I do not. 10 MS. THOMPSON: All right. Moving onto 11 commission member comments. Does anybody from the board 12 have a comment? 13 MS. SIMON: My only comment is we need some more 14 members. 15 MR. HALFERTY: Yeah. Trying to reach out to 16 people. 17 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah. Okay, but -- but no other 18 comments so we can talk about the seminar we will 19 participating next week. 20 MR. MOYER: Maybe we should talk to some of the 21 people that don’t get elected to city council and have 22 them join us. 23 MS. THOMPSON: That would be a good -- a good 24 avenue I think. 25 5 MR. MOYER: They could participate. 1 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah. Okay. Disclosure of 2 conflict of interest. I know Sheri’s conflicted here. 3 Anybody else? We’re all good. Okay. 4 Amy, project monitoring, staff comments, 5 certificate of no negative effect reports. 6 MS. SIMON: I don’t think we have significant 7 staff comments tonight. There have been some project 8 monitoring requests recently. 9 Sarah, do you have any that you want to bring up 10 now or are you just meeting up with the monitors directly? 11 MS. YOON: I am reaching out to the monitors 12 directly and I don’t have any new project monitoring 13 questions at this time. 14 MS. SIMON: Okay and as far as certificate of no 15 negative effect, one was issued for some window changes on 16 a non-historic location to a house on the west end at 523 17 West Smuggler. 18 Sarah, did we have any others? 19 MS. YOON: No, not this week. 20 MS. SIMON: Not since the last meeting. 21 MS. YOON: Yes, none. 22 MS. SIMON: So, thank you for scheduling a 23 special meeting for tonight. We will be seeing you again 24 6 in one week for another agenda but I think that’s the end 1 of our staff comments tonight. 2 MR. HALFERTY: Yeah, thank you guys for 3 accommodating my (indiscernible) schedule. 4 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Kate, have we received the 5 public notice? I think we received that when we continued 6 the hearing. Is that correct? So, we should be good. 7 MS. SIMON: That’s correct. 8 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. We have a hard time 9 hearing you every time, Kate. Technical difficulties. We 10 should -- can we move on? Thumbs up. 11 MS. JOHNSON: Can you hear me now? 12 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, we can hear you now. 13 MS. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. This hearing 14 was continued. We did confirm that notice was provided 15 pursuant to the code at the first meeting that this was 16 scheduled for. So, notice was provided. The hearings 17 were continued and I just want to make note that this was 18 a special meeting and we did post the agenda with a 19 special meeting item at least 24 hours in advance. Thank 20 you. 21 MS. THOMPSON: Thanks, Kate. 22 OLD BUSINESS: 23 7 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Moving onto old business, 1 1020 East Cooper Avenue. Is the applicant going to go 2 first tonight again? 3 MS. SIMON: Yes, the applicant will do their 4 presentation first and then Kevin Rayes and I will provide 5 the staff position. 6 MS. THOMPSON: Okay and Sara, when you begin 7 would you just note who from your team is on the call 8 tonight just so I can make a note of that for public 9 comment later? 10 MS. ADAMS: Sure, happy to. Can everyone hear 11 me okay? 12 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 13 MS. ADAMS: Great. I’m going to share my screen 14 and get started. One second to catch up. Okay. Kara, do 15 you mind giving me a thumbs up if you can see the screen? 16 Perfect. Thank you. 17 So, I’m Sara Adams with BendonAdams. Thank you 18 for the opportunity to present this revised project to HPC 19 tonight. We took your recommendations to heart and we 20 redesigned the project to address your concerns. The code 21 asks HPC to wear many hats tonight that you can see on 22 this slide. This is about the Historic Preservation 23 Design Guidelines, of course. This compliant code -- 24 code-compliant project is also about supporting city 25 8 policy. This code-compliant project is about following 1 through with the Aspen area community plan and this code-2 compliant project is about meeting the intent and the 3 requirements of the multi-family zone district. 4 Here’s our ownership team, which we presented to 5 you in January. On the call is Jim DeFrancia and Jean 6 Coulter. I’m obviously on the call. Brian Beasley, David 7 Johnson from DJA for architecture. We also have Tom Todd 8 and Riley will be joining us shortly once she picks up her 9 dog from doggie daycare. 10 So, the redesign we feel is very responsive to 11 HPC’s concerns. As is typical to HPC reviews, the design 12 issues that you raised in January result in a much better 13 project so we really thank you for your thoughtful 14 comments. We heard a lot of support for affordable 15 housing in January but we ask you -- we’re asking HPC to 16 use your authority to demonstrate that support. This is a 17 fully code-compliant project so if HPC can’t approve this 18 project then we wonder what is approvable. 19 As you can see on this slide, we’ve reduced the 20 mass and scale. We’ve lowered the height. We’ve 21 reconfigured the units. We’ve increased the front yard 22 setback but we’ve maintained the 10 feet distance between 23 buildings on the ground level and we’re not asking for any 24 variances, no rear yard variances, no variances at all. 25 9 At the end of the presentation, there’s some 1 topics that I’ll clarify that came up in January and that 2 have been coming up through the public comment we’ve been 3 receiving since then. You’re going to hear a lot of 4 amplified statements of opposition from the neighbors 5 during public comment. This project is applying for 6 approval under the same RMF zone district that allowed for 7 these neighbor’s projects to be built. This project 8 should not be treated any different. It should have 9 access to the same review standards. When they bought 10 their properties the zoning of this property was RMF as it 11 remains today. 12 So, here’s a comparison slide that’s been 13 updated. It compares the dimension requirements on the 14 left to what was presented January 13th with a slight 15 amendment to the floor area and then what’s proposed 16 tonight on February 17th and then at the righthand side it 17 says whether or not it’s code compliant. So, you can see 18 that we’ve reduced our floor area by shrinking the third 19 floor and I’ll walk you through that in the floor plans. 20 I want to talk about density for a second. This 21 column here. You can see in the dimension requirement 22 that there’s no limit on the number of units allowed in 23 this zone district and that’s intentional. That’s 24 intentional to allow high density residential uses in this 25 10 neighborhood. The neighborhood was designated high 1 density because of its proximity to downtown, to 2 transportation and also based on existing developmental 3 patterns. 4 You can see here under height that we’ve reduced 5 the height. We did this by pulling down the plate heights 6 and also the roof pitch. All of the units have an 7 interior floor to ceiling height of nine feet. You can 8 see there’s a range of heights in this column that’s based 9 on the grade change from Cooper to the alley which is 10 typical for a lot of lots in Aspen but just to clarify for 11 the public that’s why there’s a range of -- of heights 12 here. You can see that we’re well under our maximum 13 height. We’re well under our maximum floor area and we 14 meet density. 15 As I mentioned before, we increased our front 16 setback. We’re now at six feet, six inches. We now 17 exceed the minimum setback by one foot -- a foot and a 18 half and we still maintained that 10-foot distance between 19 the buildings on the ground level because of its important 20 in the design guidelines. 21 We did not intrude on the rear yard setback. We 22 talked about this a little bit at the end of the meeting 23 in January. We looked at fire codes. We looked at 24 11 property line protection, discussed it with the Building 1 Department and it -- the fire codes -- 2 UNKNOWN: (indiscernible) already there, the 3 meeting recording -- 4 MS. ADAMS: -- excuse me. The fire codes would 5 require us to reduce the window sizes on the alley side 6 which just isn’t acceptable to us. We want to maximize 7 the livability of these units through outdoor space, 8 private decks and large windows so we’ve stayed out of 9 that rear yard setback. 10 To talk a little bit about parking. This is 11 something that comes up a lot on -- on many projects and 12 this project as well. As you can see, there’s no on-site 13 requirement. There’s zero spaces required. We’re 14 providing four spaces with a full transportation 15 management plan that we developed with the city. The code 16 requires zero spaces to discourage car ownership. This is 17 a city policy. It’s grounded in climate change and it 18 went through a lengthy code amendment and public outreach 19 process in 2016. If you don’t like that policy, that’s 20 more of a conversation with city council. It’s really not 21 up to HPC or to the neighbors to change city policy via 22 individual projects. So, we’re -- we’re actually 23 exceeding the parking requirement by four onsite spaces. 24 12 So, I’m going to shift into showing you the 1 design changes. Here -- let me move my face over a little 2 bit. Okay. Here you can see the January proposal. I’m 3 going to toggle down to what we’re proposing now. So, 4 this is the January proposal and this is the revision. 5 This is the east elevation. So, we stepped back 6 the third floor by reducing it from a three-bedroom unit 7 to a two-bedroom unit. We relocated that third bedroom 8 into the landmark. The rear of the landmark -- that rear 9 unit was converted to a three-bedroom unit with the 10 addition of a dormer in this non-historic over-framed 11 roof. That’s not historic material. That’s not a 12 historic roof. It makes room for an extra bedroom. 13 Then you can also see here the storage units 14 that were proposed are removed. So, you can see the 15 height reduction along the alley. You can see the step 16 back for the third floor and then the addition of this 17 dormer here. 18 I have guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 on this slide. 19 They talk about dividing the new building into modules 20 making sure it’s similar in scale to the historic. The 21 historic measurement up to the ridge is just over 16 feet. 22 The height of the deck from grade -- now remember, the 23 grade drops down. From grade up to the deck of this 24 third-floor unit is just over 20 feet. So, the buildings 25 13 are also separated by 10 feet on the ground floor right 1 here. We really feel that the intent of these design 2 guidelines at the front elevation is similar in height to 3 the historic is met. 4 So, here’s the west elevation. So, this is what 5 was proposed in January and then here’s our revision. You 6 can see in the orange outlines what’s been removed. So, 7 I’ll go back. This is the January and then here’s what’s 8 proposed tonight. So, we’ve obviously reduced the 9 massing. We feel pretty strongly that the building really 10 is a two-story building. We’re using dormers. We’re 11 using roof forms to emphasize this two-story massing and 12 have the third floor really recede while also providing 13 living space in these proposed dormers for that upper 14 unit. 15 So, we have updated renderings with the new 16 proposal and here you can really see the relationship of 17 height between the landmark and the new building behind 18 especially in the rendering on the righthand side which is 19 the side walking down Cooper Avenue view where you can see 20 that strong two-story element and then the step back up to 21 the third -- the third floor and this is the head-on view. 22 There’s no parked cars or traffic looking directly at the 23 property in context of the two neighbors. 24 14 So, 11.6 talks about -- I think we all know -- 1 choosing two of the categories and having a contemporary 2 response to the third. So, we relate -- the new building 3 relates to the form of the landmark. It’s an L-shaped 4 footprint. Gable roof forms are the primary roof form. 5 It relates to material and this is something 6 that we’re still developing for final design but the 7 intent is to use wood siding as the primary building 8 material and we’re diverting in our relationship to 9 windows. The windows are a similar size and shape to the 10 miner’s cabin but they definitely have a contemporary 11 application because we’re trying to maximize the amount of 12 natural light in these units. 13 Guideline 11.7, imitation of older historic 14 styles is discouraged. So, here’s an elevation of the new 15 building -- the south elevation so the landmark’s not in 16 front of it and a rendering of the alley. Clearly, this 17 building is a product of its own time. It highlights the 18 miner’s cabin but it’s clearly a new building. 19 The alley elevation, you can see the traditional 20 roof forms but also the modern application and in the 21 front elevation, you can see it just very modestly is 22 still the very simple design intended to recede behind 23 that miner’s cabin and really support the architecture of 24 the restored cabin. 25 15 So, moving onto the dormer. I’m sure you have 1 questions about the dormer. It’s proposed that at the 2 rear of the landmark, like I said in an area of the 3 building that’s over-framed. This is not historic roof. 4 I pull up guideline 7.6 because that is the guideline that 5 addresses new dormers in historic buildings. The dormer 6 fits within the wall plane. It’s located at the ridge 7 line. It’s not over the ridge line. The dormer allows 8 the reduction of the third-floor massing as you can 9 imagine. At left, that’s where -- uhm -- the dormer 10 accommodates the bedroom and at right, this dormer 11 provides natural light into the living space below and 12 that really improves the livability without complicating 13 the simple cross gable, as viewed from Cooper. So, we 14 feel like this guideline is met. 15 As I mentioned earlier, the neighborhood is 16 zoned RMF, residential multi-family. It’s been designated 17 multi-family residential since 1975. That’s about 45, 46 18 years. 19 The historic development pattern that you can 20 see on the left from the turn of the century, there’s a 21 range of front yard setbacks, not just along this block 22 face towards the river but also across the street. You 23 can also see in our bird’s-eye view there’s still a range 24 of front setbacks. It goes from zero along the river to 25 16 where we’re proposing our project and then it starts to 1 recede back as you get into the single-family homes owned 2 by the Stover and the McDonald families. 3 The building footprint that we’re proposing 4 reinforces the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. 5 Perpendicular to the street, there’s a 6-1/2-foot front 6 setback. Useful open space, as viewed from Cooper, is the 7 front yard and the side yard, which is similar to the 8 current condition and the condition throughout the 9 neighborhood. 10 The front gable, like I said, is 6-1/2-feet from 11 the street. The front porch is open and it’s over four 12 feet deep so you’ve got a feeling of about 10-1/2-feet 13 deep if you’re at the front door of the landmark and 14 that’s measured to the property line. It’s not measured 15 to the street so you have your property line. You have a 16 buffer. You have a sidewalk. You have another landscape 17 buffer and then you have the street. As you can see in 18 this slide, there’s a natural progression from the large 19 Riverside Condos all the way down to the McDonald’s house. 20 So, here kind of getting into some of the 21 details about the affordable housing units. We’re 22 proposing five units. You can see there’s two in the 23 landmark still and then there’s three in the new building. 24 One of the units in the landmark, unit 101, is over the 25 17 size mandated by APCHA. Unit 102 is just under, 0.6-1 square feet under the 1200 that’s required for a three-2 bedroom. Then the units in the new building are within 3 the 20 percent allowed reduction but they are smaller than 4 the mandated size by APCHA. APCHA has approved all of 5 these units for a reduction as part of their review. 6 I want to step back for a second to just point 7 out that we -- we really approach housing projects as if 8 we’re going to live there and I think each of us -- well, 9 HPC and some of us locals have an affordable housing 10 story. Mine is that my family tried for over 10 years to 11 win a unit without success. We rented affordable housing 12 for five years and unfortunately, now we live in Basalt 13 instead of in Aspen. So, we all have that story and we -- 14 when we look at the design of these units, it’s very 15 personal to us and it’s really important to our team. 16 Each unit has a private deck or porch. All of 17 the units have washers and dryers. All the two-bedroom 18 units have two baths and all the three-bedroom units have 19 three baths. The smallest unit, which is this unit 301, 20 it’s on the third floor. It has a nice deck with views of 21 Aspen Mountain on the south and then on the north side it 22 has a deck with views of Red Mountain on the back. So, 23 we’re trying to compensate for the loss of square footage 24 18 by reducing that third floor by providing really nice 1 decks and really nice private outdoor space. 2 So, just walking you through the changes in the 3 floor plans. Because we went through this in January, I 4 just want to point out a few of the changes in the 5 landmark especially. So, we have -- you know -- it goes 6 basement, main level, second level. There was pretty much 7 no change to the basement level since January, nothing 8 substantial. On the ground level, Unit 103, we had to 9 pull in one foot to maintain that 10-foot distance between 10 the buildings. So, that’s where you see this dotted line, 11 the second and third floors overhang one feet -- one foot 12 but the -- uhm -- the layout of the unit has remained the 13 same and this is our type B ADA unit. 14 Unit 102 is the unit that became a three 15 bedroom. So, you walk in your side private entrance. You 16 go downstairs to two bedrooms and two full bathrooms. At 17 grade, you have a powder room and then you continue up the 18 same stairs to your third bedroom, which is up here in the 19 dormer with a nice closet. 20 This right here is the storage we presented in 21 January for unit 101 above the kitchen. It’s accessed by 22 a ship ladder right here. 23 So, looking at the new building, the second 24 floor has a private deck right here. You enter. You have 25 19 three bedrooms and three full bathrooms and your living 1 space with your private side deck. 2 This is the smallest unit. It’s now a two-3 bedroom unit. You can see that generous front deck here 4 where you enter and then a small deck along the alley. 5 Two bedrooms and one-and-a-half baths -- it’s a powder 6 room and a full bath. 7 We still have maintained the outdoor communal 8 area. There’s the -- we’re considering a grill, which is 9 something we finalize during final review. We have this 10 communal outdoor seating area right near the tree which 11 straddles the property line between 1024 and 1020. 12 You can see our bike rack and -- you know -- we 13 heard from HPC members the importance of storage and we 14 obviously agree. We all live here. We all play here. We 15 have stuff. So, we’ve started to design it into the 16 project. It’s something that we intended to do for final 17 but we’re happy to start incorporating it now. This is an 18 example of hanging storage that would be located above the 19 cars in the carport. It’s something that you pull down 20 with a conveyor belt. We’re trying to figure out how you 21 would secure your -- your equipment -- you know -- with a 22 cage, a lock it or something like that but this is the 23 intent. 24 20 I have a slide that shows all the storage on the 1 property. Everything in yellow is private storage that’s 2 assigned to a unit or within a unit. Then the blue, like 3 right here, which is what I just showed you, is more kind 4 of communal storage. It would obviously be distinguished 5 per unit but it’s accessed in a communal space. So, we 6 have our bike rack here and then this would be -- you know 7 -- skis, kayaks, things like that that you could hang 8 above the carport in that pull-down storage area. So, we 9 feel that there’s pretty ample storage. There’s large 10 closets wherever we could fit them in all of the units as 11 you can see. 12 So, there’s a reason why council designated this 13 neighborhood as RMF and it has a lot to do with its 14 proximity to downtown and its proximity to transportation. 15 The transportation plan that we’re providing to all 16 tenants will encourage alternate forms of transit. Here 17 you can see the walking times to We Cycle, to Car-To-Go. 18 HC is the Hunter Creek bus and MV is the Mountain Valley 19 bus, which is RFTA and you’re only a few minutes from 20 downtown if you want to walk or bike. We’re really lucky 21 in Aspen. We don’t have to own a car. We understand this 22 is a fundamental behavior change. It’s hard for some 23 people to accept but the bottom line is, regardless of 24 whether you agree or not with the parking problem in 25 21 Aspen, the code does not require onsite parking for multi-1 family residential projects in this neighborhood and the 2 Aspen infill area. This is a city policy and it’s 3 codified in the code. 4 As I mentioned, the project provides five -- or 5 four spaces. There’s four onsite spaces. It could 6 provide zero spaces. It could have a new two-story 7 building as opposed to a three-story building if it had no 8 parking but we want to be good neighbors and we want to be 9 responsive to neighborhood need by accommodating some 10 parking onsite. 11 This is the neighborhood context. I showed this 12 slide in January. We’ve updated it with the new 13 renderings and then new bird’s eye view. As you can see, 14 there’s multi -- mostly multi-family buildings along the 15 block face and along the alley with the exception of the 16 McDonald’s and Stover’s which are single -- single-family 17 at the corner of the block. 18 So, speaking about context, this is a comparison 19 of other multi-family buildings in the neighborhood. The 20 numbers that you see here, this is a comparison about 21 height. The heights are based on building permit records, 22 assessor records, condo plats, and land use records. I 23 want to be clear; I did not climb on top of buildings to 24 independently verify the building heights. I used the 25 22 city’s records to get as close to the building heights as 1 possible. The purpose of this slide is to demonstrate the 2 1020, which is located right here in the middle, is not 3 taller or shorter. It’s right in the middle of what’s 4 happening in the block. It’s not the tallest and it’s not 5 the shortest. 6 Similarly, here’s a comparison of FAR for multi-7 family buildings in the neighborhood. Again, I didn’t go 8 into each unit to independently verify square footage 9 numbers. We relied on condo plats, the city’s land use 10 archives -- building permit archives to -- to deduce this 11 information and, again, the purpose of this slide is to 12 take into account the square footage on the lot. It’s a 13 good way to gauge open space. It’s not just a total floor 14 area number and you can see, while the lots on either side 15 are larger, the above-grade square footage is pretty 16 comparable. 1012 is the Cooper Victorian Condos. 1024 is 17 Riverside. You can see 1020 is contextual. It’s not the 18 biggest. It’s not the smallest. It’s just right in the 19 middle. 20 So, community outreach -- neighborhood outreach. 21 Our mandate or what we’ve taken on with this project is to 22 inform the neighbors and I think everyone will agree that 23 we’ve gone above and beyond to inform the neighbors. 24 Regardless of the tone of the letters or the comments, 25 23 we’re committed to keeping the communications lines open. 1 We recently held a Zoom meeting on February 4th to review 2 the design changes. We’ve been sending out regular 3 updates about the rescheduled hearing, about updated 4 calculations, about any updated renderings to anyone who’s 5 -- who’s signed up on the web site -- you know -- and you 6 can see we have our dedicated project e-mail. We’ve 7 responded to roughly 30 project-related inquiries. We’ve 8 taken the time to address the concerns, do new 9 calculations -- you know -- try to get everyone the 10 information that they need to understand the project. 11 We’ve also organized and researched all of the 12 public comment to date to inform our project revisions. 13 We have a pretty massive spreadsheet that tracts every -- 14 every public comment that has been received by the city or 15 us independently. So, there were so many letters we 16 needed to map them out to figure out where they were 17 coming from and who was represented because we didn’t want 18 anyone’s voice to be lost. So, what you can see here are 19 -- in the left-hand corner are the neighbors that have 20 been commenting on the project. 1020 is located right 21 between the 13 and 16. So, this is the number of letters 22 received per property from the neighbors. 23 We also want to highlight the ACRA support, 24 which represents over 700 business in Aspen and the SkiCo 25 24 support which represents 3000 employees. So, there’s this 1 bar graph -- or a pie chart that Riley put together that’s 2 showing SkiCo’s support, ACRA support and then the 3 neighbors that have voiced their concerns. 4 Then we went a little deeper into our analysis 5 and here you can see the multiple letters that have come 6 from the same neighbors and I think this really helps 7 understand where the concerns are coming from, what’s -- 8 what the concerns are and really put it into context over 9 our greater community. Just, for example, you can see 10 1012 East Cooper, there’s five units, but there’s been 13 11 submissions. There’s been six letters from one unit. If 12 you see the star, that means that they -- that the Pitkin 13 County Assessor has them listed with an out-of-town 14 mailing address so the assumption is that they are not 15 fulltime residents here, whether or not that matters. We 16 think that it’s important to just have a better context of 17 where the letters are coming from and everyone’s 18 perspective. You can see at the bottom of this slide, 19 these are letters of support and it goes up into not 20 support and, again, 1024 East Cooper, 10 units, 16 21 submissions. So, we really tried to outline exactly where 22 the comments were coming from. 23 This is a zoomed in version. The ones along the 24 street are letters that were received from people that 25 25 don’t live in the neighborhood so we had to kind of put 1 them somewhere. 2 So, this slide talks about recent housing 3 demand. There’s inherent support for affordable housing 4 and you can see that in this most recent -- the most 5 recent three housing lotteries in 2020 with comparable 6 projects. These are the three city-developed projects 7 that are all rentals. They’re all located in town -- 802 8 West Main, 517 Park Circle, 488 Castle Creek -- 526 9 residents did not -- or put in their name to try to win 10 the lottery and did not win a unit. That’s pretty clear 11 demand. 12 This code-compliant project sets the tone for 13 future affordable housing projects. It sets the tone for 14 neighborhood influence over a decision-making body. 15 Change can be hard and we realize that but this is what 16 the community has been asking for and it’s been codified 17 into the land use code because it’s a priority. It’s a 18 priority to our community. Housing seems to make the 19 headlines at least once a week and it’s once again at the 20 top of council’s goals. 21 The single-family residence was not acceptable 22 to the neighbors but it was approved by HPC by a four to 23 two vote. This multi-family project is also not 24 acceptable to the neighbors but the neighbors bought into 25 26 a multi-family neighborhood. A code-compliant project of 1 five deed-restricted units is reasonable and to be 2 expected. 3 I strongly encourage you to look to your staff, 4 to look to council’s adopted policies in the AACP and to 5 look at the adopted code. It’s a code-compliant project 6 that will help fill a much-needed gap in the housing 7 inventory. 8 With that, I’ll turn it over to Jim DeFrancia to 9 make a few closing comments. Thank you for your time. I 10 appreciate it. 11 MR. DeFRANCIA: Members of the Commission, thank 12 you for your attention. I think Sara made an excellent 13 presentation of -- of what we’re attempting to accomplish 14 here and I think the bottom line on it is what she closed 15 with. This is a project that is fully compliant. It 16 complies with the Aspen Area Community Plan. It complies 17 with the zoning, which has been in place for 45 years. It 18 complies with the building code. We’re not seeking any 19 waivers. We’re -- we’re exceeding setbacks. We’re 20 exceeding parking requirements. We’re under FAR. We’re 21 under height. We’re right in the middle. 22 There have been complaints about density. We 23 have five units. The Victorian has five units. Vinceti 24 27 has five units. You’ve seen the graph that shows we’re in 1 the middle of all these issues. 2 So, I think the closing comment is simply a 3 reinforcement of what Sara presented. This is truly a 4 fully compliant project in all respects, planning, code, 5 zoning and public policy and we would ask you to take that 6 into account as you consider this modified application. 7 Thanks very much. 8 MS. THOMPSON: Thanks, Jim and Sara. 9 Hey, Sara, I have one quick question for you 10 before staff presents. 11 MS. ADAMS: Yeah, coming back. 12 MS. THOMPSON: When you showed the slide of that 13 third bedroom in the Victorian on the upper level and the 14 windows and the dormer, do those -- just because it 15 impacts the massing, are those windows code-compliant for 16 egress or would -- how are you meeting egress for that 17 bedroom just so we can make sure we’re looking at it 18 (indiscernible) -- 19 MS. ADAMS -- yeah, here -- 20 MS. THOMPSON: -- that works. 21 MS. ADAMS: I’m going to let Brian Beasley jump 22 in because he’s the architect that designed it and he, I 23 know, communicated with the Building Department and also 24 the zoning officer with Jim Pomeroy to confirm that it met 25 28 all the requirements. But, to answer your specific 1 question about egress I’ll wait for Brian to step in. 2 Brian, are you there? Or David Johnson, I can 3 see your name. We can come back to it if one of them 4 isn’t -- 5 MS. THOMPSON: -- we can come back to it after 6 staff presents. 7 MS. ADAMS: Yeah, I apologize. I know there’s 8 an answer. I just don’t know the technical answer for 9 you. I know that we vetted it through the city though. 10 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. 11 MR. JOHNSON: Sara, yeah, I am on. This is 12 David Johnson, but I’ll let Brian answer that since he 13 laid that out. 14 MR. BEASLEY: Can you hear me? 15 MS. ADAMS: Okay. We’ll wait for Brian. I’ll 16 -- I’ll text him. 17 MR. JOHNSON: No, he’s on now. 18 MR. BEASLEY: I’m here. 19 MS. ADAMS: Brian, can you please explain the 20 egress from the third bedroom in the dormer in unit 102? 21 MR. BEASLEY: Yes, I can. Can you hear me? 22 MS. ADAMS: Yes. 23 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 24 29 MR. BEASLEY: Okay. Yeah. Yes, we actually 1 added a window on the east elevation that complies to the 2 -- can you hear me now? 3 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah -- oh, there we go. 4 MS. ADAMS: You know, Kara, I think I know what 5 he’s going to say. 6 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah. 7 MS. ADAMS: There’s a window -- there’s a window 8 on the east elevation that’s not in historic material. 9 It’s towards the rear of the landmark that I can show on 10 the elevation if you want me to pull it up and that’s the 11 egress window. 12 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah, if you wouldn’t mind just 13 pulling that up so I can see. 14 MS. ADAMS: Yeah, I’m happy to. Just one 15 second. 16 MR. BEASLEY: Yeah, there’s a window on the east 17 elevation and that is -- is the egress compliant. 18 MS. THOMPSON: Ruth, I think Brian is mislabeled 19 as Caroline in our attendees. 20 MR. BEASLEY: Yeah, I kept getting cut off. 21 MS. THOMPSON: That’s okay. So, that is that 22 upper one. 23 MS. ADAMS: It’s right here, Kara. You can see 24 it’s operable. 25 30 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Perfect. Sorry, I missed 1 that before. Thank you for clarifying. 2 MS. ADAMS: I apologize. I should have pointed 3 that out. 4 MS. THOMPSON: That’s okay. Does the Board have 5 any other questions for Sara right now? 6 MS. ADAMS: Maybe I’ll leave this up for a 7 second. 8 MS. THOMPSON: No. Okay. We’re going to move 9 onto Amy. 10 MS. ADAMS: Thank you. 11 MS. THOMPSON: You’re welcome. 12 STAFF COMMENTS: 13 MS. SIMON: Thank you and Kevin is going to 14 start our staff presentation. Kevin Rayes. 15 MR. RAYES: Good evening. Thanks. Thanks, Amy. 16 I’m Kevin Rayes. I’m a planner with the Community 17 Development Department and I’m going to share my screen 18 real fast. 19 Okay. Before I begin, I want to make sure is 20 everyone able to see my screen? Okay. Perfect. So, I’m 21 going to -- I’m going to -- uhm -- go over some of the 22 stuff that Sara just touch on a little bit more briefly 23 but I’m going to touch on specifically the reviews related 24 31 to growth management, certificates of affordable housing 1 credits and the transportation and parking management. 2 Sara did a great job the conceptual major 3 development, relocation and demolition. So, I’m going to 4 kind of skip over those and focus on the other ones. 5 So, a quick background. 1020 East Cooper is 6 located in the RMF zone district. It’s on a 4300-square 7 foot lot and there’s a landmark Victorian home with two 8 sheds at the rear. The two sheds are of an unknown 9 construction date and the applicant plans to demolish 10 those sheds and convert the site to 100 percent affordable 11 housing with five units in total. 12 So, I’m going to jump in and show the previous 13 design that was reviewed in January and then the revised 14 design for this evening. So, as Sara previously showed on 15 the previous design there’s massing on the third floor to 16 accommodate a three-bedroom unit and that massing has 17 since been removed and that third floor is now going to 18 accommodate a two-bedroom unit. That massing has been 19 replaced on the historic resource. As you can see on the 20 previous design there’s no dormer at the rear. It’s just 21 a gable roof and on the revised design, there’s a dormer 22 that’s added to accommodate that third bedroom. 23 In addition to that, the overall height of the 24 revised design has been reduced as well. In the RMF zone 25 32 district, the maximum height for a building is 32 feet in 1 height and this building I think at the highest point is 2 under 30 feet. It’s at about 29 feet, 8 inches, give or 3 take a few inches. So, this is well-below the maximum 4 height allowed in the RMF zone district. 5 Looking at the front yard setbacks, the RMF zone 6 district prescribes a minimum of five feet from the front, 7 which was previously proposed and that has now been 8 increased to six-and-a-half-feet from the front of the 9 porch to the street and if -- in looking from the front 10 façade of the building, that is actually 11 feet, six 11 inches if you were to measure from the front door of the 12 building to the street. 13 Then the 10-foot separation between the historic 14 resource and the rear addition remains the same and that 15 complies with underlying zoning. So, I’m going to show 16 the previous design, again, the renderings both are on the 17 left. These are both previous designs. The rendering on 18 the top shows the historic resource at the front with the 19 rear addition at the rear and then the -- the rendering on 20 the bottom is the back of the rear addition. As you can 21 see on the right, we have the revised design. The rear 22 addition is pulled back from the street and a deck is 23 added so the massing is reduced in that way as well as the 24 historic resource is pulled back as well from the street 25 33 and the -- the massing on the back of the addition is also 1 greatly improved. There’s a lot more articulation with 2 regards -- with regards to the massing and it’s just a lot 3 more visually appealing than the previous design. It’s a 4 little bit more visually appealing. 5 So, looking at this from an elevation side 6 perspective. So, again, this is the revised design with 7 the dormer at the rear of the -- of the historic resource. 8 I’m going to just briefly jump in and show what’s 9 happening at each level of the development. 10 So, starting in the basement in the rear 11 addition, there’s a two-bedroom unit, which it’s -- part 12 of the unit goes into the basement. In the middle in the 13 basement there’s a storage area, egress and mechanical 14 space and then in the basement of the rear addition is 15 part of a two-bedroom unit. 16 Moving up to the first floor, first looking at 17 the historic resource. You can see that there’s a two-18 bedroom unit and a three-bedroom unit. Again, that two-19 bedroom unit is -- was the one I showed in the basement 20 that’s going up to the top as well. Then the common 21 outdoor area is within the middle of the two units and at 22 the rear we have a -- a second part of that two-bedroom 23 unit that I showed in the basement. There’s a trash area 24 34 along the side of the unit and then at the rear there’s 1 parking, which I’m going to get to in a little bit. 2 Moving up to the second floor of each building, 3 the three-bedroom unit that’s now going to be inside the 4 historic resource, part of that is within that dormer 5 that’s added and then the two-bedroom unit has a smaller 6 space for that storage that Sara mentioned. Here’s a 7 rendering of what that space would look like. Again, we 8 think this is a great way to get storage that -- you know 9 -- maximizes storage for the tenants without negatively 10 impacting the outside of the units -- you know -- it’s 11 inside the building and it’s hidden. It’s not going to be 12 somewhere out in the yard or anything like that. 13 Going to the rear addition, the second floor is 14 that three-bedroom unit and then going to the top of the 15 rear addition, this is the two-bedroom unit that I’m 16 mentioned previously with a large deck at the front and 17 then another deck at the rear. 18 So, with regard to growth management and 19 affordable housing credits, as I mentioned, the 20 applicant’s going to -- you know -- all of these units are 21 for 100 percent affordable housing and these units are not 22 required for mitigation so they’re requesting to generate 23 affordable housing credits as part of this project. So, 24 with regards to the land use code and the APCHA standards, 25 35 for -- for a two-bedroom unit they’re planning to make 1 three units that are two-bedroom and that is six and a 2 half -- 6.75 fulltime equivalents and a three-bedroom unit 3 -- two units of a three-bedroom unit. There’s going to be 4 six FTEs and the total is 12.75 FTEs, which is consistent 5 with how a formula is prescribed in the land use code. 6 So, here again, we have two units in the 7 historic resource. The first unit is 116 square feet 8 above the minimum required and the second unit is more or 9 less right at the minimum required. So, both of those 10 units comply with the APCHA minimum configuration 11 standards. 12 Then the rear addition, three total units are 13 proposed, two of which are going to be two-bedroom and one 14 is a three bedroom. These units are all slightly below 15 the maximum required by APCHA but they’re all within the 16 20 percent buffer that is allowed pursuant to APCHA 17 standards. So, according to the land use code and APCHA 18 the net livable square footage to be reduced by up to 20 19 percent as long the following criteria are met: If the 20 applicant provides significant storage such as additional 21 storage outside the unit; if there is above average 22 natural light, like adding more windows than is required 23 for building code and unit amenities like access to 24 outdoor space or private patios. So, if any of these -- 25 36 you know -- types of amenities are provided for, then 1 there’s -- there’s an ability for HPC to grant a slight 2 smaller unit size. 3 In reviewing the plans, it’s obvious that 4 there’s a lot of outdoor space, whether it be private, 5 which -- you know -- on the left, there’s this private 6 deck in the historic resource and on the right, there’s 7 common space between the rear addition and the historic 8 resource, both of which contribute to the livability of 9 these units. 10 Additionally, the rear addition, as I showed on 11 the top floor, there’s -- there’s several large decks and 12 the second floor has decks as well, so, there’s plenty of 13 outdoor space. All of the units exceed the -- the minimum 14 of 50 percent above grade threshold that’s required. So, 15 all of the units are at least 50 percent above -- above 16 grade so there’s plenty of natural light and fenestration 17 and all of the units have washers and dryers inside. 18 So, staff really thinks that these are high-19 quality units despite the slightly smaller size. There 20 are a lot of great amenities that are provided for on this 21 property and these really are special units that we think 22 is going to contribute a lot to the livability of Aspen 23 for these tenants. 24 37 So, staff finds the criteria related to growth 1 management and the certificates of affordable housing 2 credit are met. We recommend approval for all the 12.75 3 FTEs that are requested. 4 Jumping into the transportation and parking 5 management. So, I want to just make this language very 6 clear. So, the RMF zone district requires one parking 7 unit per residential unit within a multi-family 8 development. In this case, five parking units are 9 required. So, a parking unit does not mean an onsite 10 parking space. It could mean a cash in lieu payment or an 11 onsite parking space. It can one of -- one of those two 12 methods and within the RMF zone district 100 percent of 13 parking mitigation may be met via cash in lieu. So, in 14 other words, there’s no onsite parking required for any 15 property in the RMF zone district. 16 So, in this case, the applicant, as Sara 17 mentioned, they’re adding -- they’re going to add four 18 parking spaces to the property, which is well above the 19 minimum required. This is 80 percent of their required 20 parking that is going to be met onsite, which, again, 21 staff finds that this is a great addition to the property. 22 Instead of using this as another unit -- affordable 23 housing unit, they’re using that for parking, which, 24 38 again, this is going to add to the livability of the units 1 and it’s going to take parking off street. 2 You know we understand that there are a lot of 3 emotions around parking in the neighborhood. As I 4 mentioned last time, the parking department does require 5 parking permits in this area and they cap the number of 6 parking permits per tenant. So, that’s another way that 7 parking impacts are going to be minimized in this area of 8 town. In addition to these parking spots, the applicant 9 is planning to provide onsite bicycle parking and the 10 applicant is also going to provide some sort of carsharing 11 membership for -- for tenants as well for the first year 12 that they’re in the property. 13 In addition to the parking and the bicycle 14 infrastructure, simply the location of this property needs 15 to be emphasized. So, on this graphic, 1020 is on the 16 right highlighted in the salmon color and when putting 17 this into Google Maps someone can walk from this property 18 into the commercial area of town in four minutes. It’s 19 less than -- you know -- it’s about 0.2 miles so it’s a 20 pretty quick walk. 21 When looking at it with regards to public 22 transportation, the nearest bus stop is less than a minute 23 away. It’s 180 feet. So, again, it’s completely 24 reasonable that someone could live in this -- in this 25 39 development without needing a car to get to a job, to go 1 to the grocery store or even to go skiing. 2 So, staff finds the transportation and parking 3 mitigation standards are met. 4 Before I jump to my next topic, I do want to 5 stay on the parking conversation one -- on one more topic. 6 There has been a lot of public comment regarding a parking 7 space at the rear of this property. Here, highlighted in 8 red, there’s a -- there’s a parking space right behind 9 1020 East Cooper and this parking space it appears that 10 it’s deeded to the property at the rear and there’s been a 11 lot of concern about how this person will get in and out 12 of their parking spot if 1020 -- you know -- once it comes 13 live and other people are parking across the alley. So -- 14 you know -- as you can see, if someone’s parking at 1020 15 they have to come and make a 90-degree turn in order to 16 park. So there -- there is concern there and when looking 17 at this concern what we -- what we consult in this 18 situation are the engineering standards related to 19 parking. 20 So, here we have a situation where there’s a 21 parallel spot to the north and 90-degree parking to south 22 at 1020 East Cooper. So, as you can see -- you know -- if 23 this is a one-way alley, you need at least 11 feet for 24 parallel parking and 24 feet for 90-degree and if it’s a 25 40 two-way alley, you need 22 feet for parallel and 24 feet 1 for the 90-degree situation. So, in this case, the 24 2 feet is what’s needed and so when reviewing the 3 configuration of this alley, we have a survey that shows 4 that this alley is 20 feet wide. Right now, there’s two 5 historic sheds at the rear of the property and it’s 6 important to note that these sheds, as I mentioned 7 previously, these sheds are going to be demolished and 8 right now, in this photo here, these are the sheds. Right 9 now, these sheds encroach into the alley by three-and-a-10 half feet. So, right now, with the sheds where they are 11 the alley width is 16-1/2 feet so that does not meet the 12 engineering standards but, again, those sheds are going to 13 be removed and it’s also important to note that the RMF 14 zone district has a minimum rear yard setback of five 15 feet. So -- you know -- simple arithmetic, 20 feet, which 16 is the alley width plus five feet, which is the rear 17 setback is 25 feet, which -- which exceeds the minimum 18 required for engineering standards. So, staff finds that 19 this is no longer a concern and -- you know -- parking is 20 going to be able to comply with engineering standards. 21 So, moving on from the parking conversation, I 22 do want to kind of shift gears here and just point out 23 that anyone who has ever lived in Aspen knows that the 24 need for affordable housing has a potential to contradict 25 41 the goals of historic preservation. Staff is super 1 sensitive to this dynamic. You know this is not our -- 2 our first project like this where we have to weigh some of 3 the -- uhm -- competing priorities but we believe that 4 these priorities can co-exist without compromising the 5 historic integrity of affordable housing -- of affordable 6 housing quality. 7 So, I want to point to a specific example of 8 that HPC approved last year at -- I’m just going to keep 9 moving here -- at 611 West Main. So, this is 611 West 10 Main. This is in the mixed-use zone district so there’s 11 different variations related to zoning that are different 12 from the residential multifamily zone district but the 13 point I want to make her is that in 2020 HPC approved a 14 conceptual review for seven affordable housing units on 15 this site. There’s a rear addition at the back which is 16 the wood façade and -- you know -- upon reviewing this 17 initially staff made a recommendation of denial to HPC 18 because we felt that it negative -- that the massing of 19 the rear negatively impacted the historic -- the historic 20 resource. Subsequently, the applicant reduced the massing 21 of the project and it was unanimously approved by HPC. 22 The difference between 611 West Main and 1020 23 East Cooper is that when HPC approved this project at 611, 24 it required three variances in order to accommodate 25 42 everything onsite. So, one was between the two buildings. 1 The historic resource at the front and the rear addition 2 at the back 10 feet minimum is required and seven feet, 3 three inches was approved by HPC. 4 At the rear, at least five feet was required as 5 a rear yard setback. 6 One second here, I’m getting some sort of 7 request. I don’t know what’s going on. Shannon, I have a 8 request to share content with me but I’m not sure -- how 9 do I -- how do I delete that? 10 SHANNON: I don’t know exactly. You should be 11 able to just dismiss it. 12 MR. RAYES: Okay. Okay. I’ll must move on. I 13 can’t -- I can’t click on the box but I’m going to just 14 keep moving here. So, at the rear of the addition, 15 there’s a five-foot rear setback required and HPC approved 16 a zero-foot setback at the rear to accommodate the parking 17 and then at the front, 10 feet was required from the front 18 of the -- of the historic resource to the street and 19 approximately five feet was approved, so that’s -- it’s 20 only set back about five feet from the front. Again, this 21 was approved by HPC in 2020. 22 Again, staff feels that this project -- you know 23 -- every project’s unique but we felt that the balance of 24 historic integrity -- you know -- was -- was consistent 25 43 with the balance of trying to get affordable housing in 1 town and we feel the same about 1020 East Cooper. 2 Again, the difference at 1020 East Cooper is 3 there’s no variances being requested. This complies with 4 underlying zoning and more importantly, the -- the zone 5 district of 1020 East Cooper is different than 611 West 6 Main. The intent and the purpose statement of -- of the 7 RMF zone district is to provide for the use of land for 8 intensive long-term residential purposes, short-term 9 vacation rentals and customary accessory uses. 10 So, again, there’s no dimensional variances or 11 special review required for this. The project complies 12 with underlying zoning related to height and setbacks and 13 parking and unit size and so, again, staff is highly 14 supportive of this project and genuinely believes that the 15 historic resource is being maintained appropriately while 16 also providing for affordable housing. 17 Now, before I wrap up, I just want to read one 18 quote from the Aspen Area Community Plan. This is from 19 both 2000 and 2012. So, the quote is the following: “Our 20 housing policy should bolster our economic and social 21 diversity, reinforce variety and enhance our sense of 22 community by integrating affordable housing into the 23 fabric of our town. The healthy social balance includes 24 all income ranges and types of people. Each project 25 44 should endeavor to further that mix and to avoid 1 segregation of economic and social classes.” 2 So, with this quote in mind, I just want to show 3 the immediate vicinity of 1020 East Cooper. On this map, 4 there are only four other deed-restricted affordable 5 housing units in the immediate vicinity of 1020 East 6 Cooper. These are all shown by the blue dots and I want 7 to -- I want to mention that each of these units are 8 ownership units. None of these are rental units and 1020 9 East Cooper is going to be a rental property and so, 10 again, the demographic that has the opportunity to live 11 here is fundamentally different than the demographic 12 living in ownership units. So, that’s another reason -- 13 that’s another thing to think about is this quote from the 14 Aspen Area Community Plan and the existing conditions 15 around 1020 East Cooper. 16 One last thing before I wrap up, there’s one 17 comment I want to address. We’ve received quite a few -- 18 uhm -- we’ve received quite a lot of feedback suggesting 19 that 24 people are going to be living in this affordable 20 housing project. There are only going to be 12 bedrooms 21 approved. There’s two three-bedroom units and three two-22 bedroom units. APCHA dictates -- you know -- who can -- 23 who can live in a unit and so as part of the review this 24 evening -- you know -- we recommend that -- that HPC avoid 25 45 discussing the types of people living in these units or 1 how many people will be living in these units as that is 2 going to be regulated by APCHA as soon as the units come 3 online. 4 So, in conclusion -- you know -- staff 5 recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission 6 approve this application for the following: Conceptual 7 major development, relocation, demolition, growth 8 management, transportation and parking management, and 9 certificates of affordable housing credits. 10 I believe -- Amy did you want to -- did you want 11 to add one for -- 12 MS. SIMON: -- I’ll just make a couple of quick 13 comments because I know you put out a lot of presentation. 14 Just speaking briefly to the design guidelines, which Sara 15 Adams walked through in the presentation. I think HPC is 16 very aware that 40 percent of the designated historic 17 properties in town are what we call miner’s cottages. 18 Very small little buildings sitting on properties that 19 have a significantly larger amount of development rights. 20 It is a challenge every time to try to balance a site-21 specific appropriate direction to go that preserves the 22 historic resource and allows the property owner to build 23 what they have the right to build in a sensitive way. 24 46 We find that the design guidelines applicable 1 here are met. There are very few miner’s cottages that 2 would be preserved in town with no addition. It’s going 3 to be its tiny little self forever with a detached 4 building behind it and that in itself is enormous success. 5 You will be able to understand the size of the building 6 that a family lived in here in the 1800s. So, we really 7 support that. We also think the fact that the new 8 construction is behind the property rather than a side-by-9 side kind of configuration where their difference in 10 height would be much more exaggerated makes this 11 successful and we find that the design guidelines are met. 12 We also agree with the comment the applicant 13 made that, as usual, HPC’s input has only improved the 14 project. There’s been some adjustments that were made for 15 this version of the design that we think are quite 16 successful in creating a break line at that second level 17 and reducing the mass on the third floor. 18 Then just one last comment. I know the board 19 knows this but especially on a project of this type where 20 there’s multifamily development proposed, we hold what’s 21 called a development review committee meeting, which I 22 believe happened in November, where quite a few city 23 agencies come together to vet the project, fire, 24 engineering, parks, water, everyone got together and took 25 47 a preliminary look at the project, gave the applicant 1 feedback. They made adjustments. They’ve had many 2 conversations with building and zoning about code 3 requirements, about the egress window that Sara showed. 4 They have seriously vetted this project to make sure that 5 they’re showing you something that is responsible and 6 buildable. 7 There are some comments that have been that have 8 been submitted questioning their calculations. It appears 9 that in the original submission the architect accidentally 10 counted some stair -- a staircase more in floor area than 11 they should have. They actually overstated the size of 12 their project and that error bled through into the next 13 iteration. It has been corrected for you tonight and I 14 just want to make sure you understand calculations are 15 finalized at building permit but there certainly has been 16 scrutiny and effort on everyone’s part to try to make sure 17 that -- you know -- we have brought this project, at least 18 at a conceptual level to total compliance with the code. 19 So, with that, I think we’re ready for any 20 questions that the board might have. 21 MR. KENDRICK: I have one question for you, Amy, 22 since you’re already warmed up and talking. Can you -- 23 uhm -- can you just go over exactly what our purview is in 24 this meeting as there was a lot of stuff talked about 25 48 including, like, livability and such, that I think is kind 1 of irrelevant to what we need to discuss tonight? 2 MS. SIMON: Well, as you see on the screen 3 before you, these are the topics -- uhm -- the review 4 topics that were before you and in your packet you have a 5 list of the criteria applicable to each of these types of 6 processes and staff findings and recommendations. These 7 are the topics before you. 8 The -- APCHA has established a lot of standards 9 that go to these questions of livability, how big should a 10 unit be, what kind of amenities are needed. APCHA has 11 provided a recommendation in support of the project. If 12 you have questions about that, of course, but you really 13 are being asked to consider the criteria that are provided 14 in your packet in your decision making. 15 MR. MOYER: Amy, can you hear me? 16 MS. SIMON: Yes. 17 MR. MOYER: I went through the list and I -- I 18 agree that this project has met all of the criteria. 19 There were lots of issues that were brought up that really 20 are not part of our purview. Because of these issues, 21 obviously there are concerns, but really it seems that 22 those concerns should be taken up with city council. 23 MS. SIMON: Well, you’re being asked to review 24 the project according to the code that’s in place. We do 25 49 not require parking on the site, for instance, for a 1 project like this. If there’s a concern about that, 2 that’s a policy question that should be taken through the 3 proper process. You’re asked to look at the project 4 compared to the standards that we have now and I do think, 5 also, as I just acknowledged, input is helpful and the 6 applicant has made a number of adjustments in order to try 7 to make this project the most successful fit in the 8 neighborhood they can make. So, there’s -- there’s a lot 9 of good that comes out of these kind of hearings, of 10 course. 11 MR. MOYER: I agree and so, my question is would 12 it be helpful if we made some sort of statement to council 13 that there are other concerns which are really not a part 14 of our purview and that we would like council to -- to 15 take a look at those and answer the concerns of the 16 neighbors? We feel it would be very helpful to the 17 neighbors. Is that something we should do or do we not 18 have to do something like that? 19 MS. SIMON: My recommendation is that you 20 address the application that’s before you tonight. We can 21 always have separate discussions about recommendations you 22 may have for improvements but you really should review 23 this under the criteria in place. 24 MR. MOYER: Okay. Thanks. 25 50 MR. HALFERTY: I have a question for staff, too, 1 please, Kara, if I may. 2 Concerning the dormer 7.6 -- you know -- on the 3 historic resource, I understand that’s not historic 4 material. I understand it’s an avenue to help with the 5 rear -- you know -- structure there. What is staff’s 6 position on the dormer design for that? 7 MS. SIMON: I think just like you said, Jeff. 8 It’s is touching non-historic material. It is sitting on 9 a 1960s addition to the building. It sits below the 10 ridgeline of the historic resource so you will not see it 11 from the street and it seemed to be a successful way to 12 maintain net the livable area that the applicant was 13 trying to create without any significant impact. 14 MR. HALFERTY: Thank you. 15 MR. MOYER: I have another question, Amy. 16 Looking to the future with any application, particularly 17 ours, is -- does the permit process look at the 18 installation of the electrical outlets for electric 19 vehicles? Is that part of the process today or is that 20 something that’s being discussed for future projects and 21 is that something we should encourage to be added to any 22 project that has onsite parking? 23 MS. SIMON: It actually, Roger, is part of this 24 project. I believe it’s mentioned somewhere in the packet 25 51 that when you have over a certain number of units they 1 have to provide the infrastructure for a future EV 2 charger. So, the applicant may be able to clarify. I 3 don’t think they have to install the charger now but they 4 have to put everything in place to allow it to happen. 5 MR. MOYER: Thank you. 6 MS. THOMPSON: All right. Does the board have 7 any more questions? I actually don’t have any right now 8 surprisingly. 9 MR. MOYER: I have a curiosity question for 10 Sara. Can I ask that now or should I wait until later? 11 MS. THOMPSON: You can ask that now before we 12 get into public comment. That’s fine. 13 MR. MOYER: Sara, the landmark, which is not a 14 Victorian, it’s a miner’s cabin and the new building, will 15 they be pretty -- pretty much energy efficient? Isn’t 16 that part of the code now days? 17 MS. ADAMS: Yes, that is -- that is the plan and 18 they’re actually aren’t any historic windows in the 19 miner’s cabin so I mean all the new windows that will be 20 in the project will -- will meet energy code. But, yes, 21 that is -- that is the plan, Roger, and it’s something 22 that we can make a note to elaborate on the final design 23 application because that would (indiscernible) that. 24 52 MR. MOYER: How close would this project be to 1 zero efficiency? 2 MS. ADAMS: I will have to defer to Brian or 3 David on that. I don’t know that answer, Roger. 4 MR. MOYER: It’s not -- it’s just a curious 5 question -- 6 MS. ADAMS: -- yeah, I made a note and it’s 7 something we can -- we can definitely get you better 8 information for final design review. 9 MR. MOYER: And that would -- yeah, that’s 10 great. That would be appreciated. Thank you. 11 MS. ADAMS: You’re welcome. 12 MS. THOMPSON: All right. Any more questions 13 for the board -- or for (indiscernible) from the board. 14 No. Okay. So, we are going to move on to 15 public comment. 16 PUBLIC COMMENT: 17 MS. THOMPSON: So, we’ve got a lot of people 18 here -- uhm -- so let’s see. Kevin, I think you’re still 19 sharing your screen. 20 MS. SIMON: No, it’s mine. 21 MS. THOMPSON: Now, I can see more people. All 22 right. So, we know there are a lot of members from the 23 public here who would like to comment and please -- I see 24 some of you waving your hands. We will get to everyone. 25 53 A few -- a few things to note. I am going to -- I going 1 to run through who is on my screen in order and give you a 2 chance to speak at that time. We’re -- we’re not going to 3 come back to people. We’re going to go through this so we 4 can keep this moving forward in an orderly fashion. 5 As a reminder, I know a lot of you guys know 6 this already. We have three minutes for each person for 7 public comment. I will be timing everyone just so we can 8 keep this moving along. We want to hear from everybody 9 but that is our -- that is how these procedures are run. 10 So, we’ll start with the comments and the first 11 person that I have on my screen here (indiscernible) is a 12 phone number that starts in 503 and ends in -36. If you 13 are on your cellphone, you press star six to unmute. So, 14 if whomever this is starting in 503, ending in -36. There 15 we go. Could you state your name and start your comment? 16 Oh, it’s still -- Ruth, can you hear anyone? I 17 still can’t hear. 18 RUTH: That phone number is unmuted but I’m not 19 hearing anybody speak. Now they’re muted again. 20 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Do you try one -- one more 21 -- we can move on and I’m just going to make a note of 22 that in case we can figure that out later. Thank you. 23 54 RUTH: It’s unmuted again. Area code 503 ending 1 in -36. Apparently they don’t want to talk because they 2 just muted themselves again. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. We’re going to move onto 4 phone number area code 917 -- or sorry, that’s the New 5 Yorker in me -- 617 -- 6 Ms. McDONALD: (indiscernible) McDonald -- 7 excuse me -- excuse me -- 8 RUTH: -- okay. Hold on just a second. 9 MS. McDONALD: This is -- this is really 10 ridiculous. I’m sorry. I would like to state that I am a 11 resident. I have a -- we have a house at 1000 East 12 Cooper. We were denied to have a parking space on our 13 property. It’s a single-family unit -- uhm -- and this is 14 really a complaint about the City of Aspen. It’s so 15 difficult in its plan review for a thousand twenty -- for 16 1020 East Cooper for a single-family home on that 4000-17 square foot lot. 18 Uhm -- this is a Jim DeFrancia development at 19 1020 East Cooper. It’s at the expense of an already 20 overdeveloped neighborhood with inadequate parking. This 21 all about the Crown’s (sic) greed, the Gorsuch greed and 22 the Lowe’s greed. You have to have 91 employee units for 23 the development of 1A and you expect us to take this in 24 our neighborhood. Uhm -- the massing development at 1A is 25 55 three -- 320,000 square feet of a hotel and condos. If 1 they can’t put their staffing on their site, do not put it 2 in our neighborhood. 1A, which crawls up the slopes of 3 Ajax Mountain is nothing less than an ostentatious 4 monument to the Crowns (sic), the Gorsuch and the Lowe 5 Enterprise. Talk about excessive massing and scale for 6 this site and then you compare it to 1A. It is a 7 complaint that you do not handle single-family homes 8 coming in front of you as you do handle city employee 9 housing units or anything for your development. 10 This applicant has had enough -- the applicant 11 that -- the single-family home applicant switched because 12 of the nonsense that is endorsed by council and staff and 13 they’re never-ending trap of HPC’s circular logic and 14 subjective micromanagement. At $350 or $325 an hour for 15 the applicant, of course, they’re going to sell out. So, 16 the Crowns (sic) and the rest of them can have the big 17 development in town. 18 I’m sorry I (indiscernible) comments and 19 (indiscernible) -- 20 MS. THOMPSON: I know -- I did not catch who was 21 speaking there and now I see that they’re muted. 22 MR. HALFERTY: I think that’s okay. We -- we 23 read the letter -- 24 56 MS. THOMPSON: -- we read that letter and that’s 1 been entered into the public comment. So -- 2 MS. SIMON: -- for the record that was Caroline 3 McDonald. 4 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you. I heard 5 (indiscernible) -- 6 RUTH: -- (indiscernible) Scott McDonald’s phone 7 so that’s why you didn’t see it that way. 8 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Perfect. Okay. Thank you 9 so much, Ruth. 10 Okay. The phone number -- is that the phone 11 number ending in -617 -- starting in 617 and ending in 12 -46? 13 RUTH: No, it was actually -- if you see on your 14 list Scott McDonald. It’s on that. 15 MS. THOMPSON: It’s not the same person though. 16 Just to confirm. The person with 617 ending in -46, can 17 you please unmute if you’d like to make a public comment? 18 Hit star six to do so on your phone. Okay. I don’t see 19 that person anymore. 20 Moving onto the next person on my list, phone 21 number starting in 760, ending in -01. Please unmute if 22 you’d like to make a public comment. 23 57 Okay. I’m going to move onto phone number 1 starting in 970, ending in -03. If you would like to make 2 a public comment, please hit star six to unmute. 3 MS. STOVER: Hello. 4 MS. THOMPSON: Hello. 5 MS. STOVER: Hello. This is Lou Stover. Mine 6 was the -01 number. 7 MS. THOMPSON: Perfect. 8 MS. STOVER: I live at 1006 East Cooper. 9 MS. THOMPSON: Please go ahead. 10 MS. STOVER: Oh, okay. I had some confusion 11 there. I’m concerned about the sheer size of this. I 12 thought in the last meeting the developer was directed to 13 reduce the size and I think very minor things were done. 14 I don’t feel that the historic group is following their 15 own guidelines as to the feel and development of the 16 historic property. I’m very concerned that we, the 17 neighbors, are going to have to live with this when it’s 18 built and done and there’s just so many difficulties with 19 the size of this, the number of people, the dead-end, one-20 way alley. I can’t imagine living with this and we have 21 no recourse once it’s built. We’re just stuck with it. 22 So, those are my concerns. 23 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you for calling in, Lou, 24 and for your comment. 25 58 Okay. We’re going to move onto Amos Underwood 1 if you would like to make a comment, please unmute. 2 MR. UNDERWOOD: No -- no comment. Thanks. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Thanks. We have Aspen 4 Daily New here. I’m assuming you’re just -- you’re 5 covering us and you would not like to make a comment 6 tonight. We’re going to move on from you. So, Baron 7 Connors -- Concors, if you have a comment to make, please 8 start. 9 MR. CONCORS: Yeah, thank you very much and 10 thank you for the time to listen to public comments. 11 These discussions are often emotional and opinionated so 12 it’s important -- you know -- we stay grounded in the 13 facts and only with facts can we make informed decisions. 14 The following are facts, not opinions. The 15 neighborhood opposition to this property has nothing to do 16 with affordable housing. This is about the overwhelming 17 mass and scale that’s been talked about now for two years. 18 You’ll likely hear support for this project during these 19 public comments. Please ask yourself if any of these 20 people expressing support actually live in the 21 neighborhood that will be negatively impacted. 22 In the developer’s application, you see an image 23 showing the large number of multi-family properties 24 surrounding 1020 Cooper. This is indicative of how over-25 59 developed the neighborhood already is and adding this many 1 tenants to it will just compound the quality-of-issues we 2 experience today. 3 The back structure completely overwhelms the 4 historic resource and goes against the very principle, 5 which the APC -- HPC was created to ensure massive 6 structures like this are not built on our historic 7 properties. In the opening statements, the developer’s 8 far and height analysis compares apples to oranges. None 9 of the properties being compared to 1020 Cooper are 10 historic. This is about the mass and scale of the 11 historic property, not non-historic properties. This 12 project is bigger than the last one that was remanded by 13 city council due to mass and scale. The developer is 14 trying to justify the density of this project by comparing 15 the number of units to the neighboring properties with 16 much larger lots. 17 This neighborhood is unique. We have a dead-end 18 alley with only one way in and out. We are often blocked 19 today without any way to get out. This will only compound 20 that issue. 21 With the summer traffic on 82, it’s often 22 dangerous to even cross the street. Where would children 23 play who live on this property? Even the developer’s own 24 60 rendering of the shared outdoor space shows that it’s so 1 small it will only fit four chairs. 2 Yes, affordable housing is important but so is 3 doing the right thing for the tenants that would live 4 here. The reality is is this is a good project for the 5 wrong piece of land. The developer’s opening would have 6 you believe it’s your blind duty to approve affordable 7 housing no matter what but we know rational people don’t 8 make important decisions like this in a vacuum. As with 9 any development, all factors effecting the neighborhood 10 should be considered. This is why we have public comments 11 so leaders like you in public service can understand the 12 bigger issues at hand from the residents it will impact. 13 HPC can show support for affordable housing without 14 approving something where the occupancy is excessive 15 affecting the quality of life for the tenants and the 16 people around it. 17 We, as a community, can do better and push for a 18 solution that works and if all these public comments are 19 for naught and this committee is going to look past all 20 the existing neighborhood issues and approve this, let’s 21 face it, the process is broken. Thank you. 22 MS. THOMPSON: Thanks, Baron. 23 We’re going to move on. I have Ben A. Is that 24 Ben Anderson from the city. 25 61 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, no comment. 1 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Thanks. 2 I have three Brians coming up next. Does any -- 3 I know we have a Brian from the applicant team. If there 4 is a Brian that would like to make a comment, please 5 unmute yourself. 6 MR. SCHROY: Yeah, this is Bryan Schroy. I just 7 wanted to -- you know -- agree with what Baron was saying. 8 We have no issue with the affordable housing. It’s 9 sheerly -- it’s the scale of which is definitely a concern 10 -- you know -- this is a very tall building in a historic 11 lot and it is -- the alleyway traffic, which is definitely 12 a concern as someone who has trouble getting in and out on 13 a daily basis -- you know -- that’s definitely a concern 14 with this new building. 15 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you for your comment 16 tonight. 17 We’re going to move onto Buck Carlton if you’d 18 like to unmute yourself and make a comment. Buck, are you 19 there. I know we did receive a public comment letter from 20 Buck that I believe all of the board has read. 21 So, we’re going to move onto C. Bryan. C. Bryan 22 if you would like to make a comment. 23 MR. BRYAN: Yeah, this is Chris Bryan. I’m the 24 attorney for the two HOAs that have properties on either 25 62 side of this development. The applicant and staff have 1 not done enough to reduce the mass and scale. They’ve 2 ignored the various mistakes in the calculations regarding 3 floor area. We’ve raised concerns regarding the width of 4 the alley and its sustainability for parking spaces. It 5 doesn’t appear that anyone’s actually gone out there to 6 measure the alley to confirm that it is the 20 feet that 7 they city said that the plat says it is. 8 With the applicant’s modifications from the 9 prior hearing, three of the five units still do not meet 10 the minimum size requirements for affordable housing, as 11 set forth by APCHA. Staff points out that smaller units 12 are less than 20 percent smaller than the minimum size but 13 that size deviation is allowed if the applicant provides 14 additional amenities to improve livability. 15 Let’s look at what those are. The only 16 amenities mentioned by staff are washers and dryers in the 17 units, which are already required for all APCHA units and 18 then extra storage space, yet that extra storage space 19 cuts into the livable area of unit 101. 20 It has been stated by the neighbors and the 21 commissioners, there’s hardly any open space in this 22 project or amenities for residents. They may have some 23 small private decks but no yard space and no parking. 24 This hardly seems like enough improvement of livability to 25 63 allow for the reduced size of the unit. At the prior 1 hearing it was clear that unless someone enforces leases, 2 there is no limit to the maximum number people who can 3 live in these cramped units. There just is not enough 4 space. 5 At the last meeting Commissioner Kendricks 6 stated that neighbor buy-in would be very important. The 7 neighbors have provided comment and a thorough analysis of 8 the application with feedback to staff. We even pointed 9 out the mistakes and things they missed. The neighbors 10 have made clear that they are not opposed to affordable 11 housing. I used to live in affordable housing. We like 12 affordable housing but not five units of it on a 4300-13 square-foot lot that is deemed historic. 14 We have reviewed the public comment provided to 15 HPC since the January 13th meeting and in the 44 pages of 16 public comment, there are two short one-page letters 17 supporting this project and really only because of its 18 affordable housing component. Most neighbors believe that 19 an application for fewer units, three, should be supported 20 and it could be supported and this HPC board told the 21 applicant that last time and then didn’t come back with 22 reduced units. They just lobbed off a little bit of 23 height and then put a dormer on. In this instance, there 24 64 is no neighbor buy-in on the five-unit project as 1 proposed. 2 Wanting affordable housing does not supersede 3 the HBC -- HPC’s charge to adhere to the clear historic 4 guidelines and to acknowledge the sheer mass and scale of 5 this proposal on this already very overdeveloped block. 6 The applicable city code provisions must be read together. 7 The other day my three-year-old son was working 8 on a jigsaw puzzle and there was one piece that he really 9 wanted to fit where it obviously didn’t belong. He tried 10 and he tried to make it fit. He tried to force it. He 11 squinted his eyes. He asked his puzzle consultant, his 12 five-year-old brother, to come help him find a way but the 13 piece simply did not fit and eventually he faced the 14 reality that it was the wrong piece and I assured him, 15 don’t worry there’s another piece that will fit here but 16 this piece isn’t it. 17 The HPC tonight needs to break the news to the 18 applicant that this proposed five-unit complex doesn’t fit 19 here. The HPC needs to vote to deny this application. 20 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you. Thank you for your 21 comments. 22 Okay, we’re going to move onto David Corbin. 23 David, if you have a comment please unmute yourself. 24 65 MR. CORBIN: I do. Thank you. I appreciate the 1 opportunity to speak. My name’s David Corbin. I’m with 2 Aspen Skiing Company. I found the presentations tonight 3 certainly informative and I also appreciate the 4 opportunity to see and read the staff report. Obviously, 5 Aspen Skiing Company’s interest here is a general one. In 6 spite of the comments, I heard from the woman before, 7 we’re in support of affordable housing, really in 8 practically any application you can find it. We think 9 it’s so critical that it’s key for our community to 10 support it wherever it seems to be viable and we think it 11 is entirely viable here. 12 I don’t think that it’s unusual for people to be 13 upset or concerned about size, scale and mass. That’s -- 14 that -- those are issues of concern for every project of 15 any type that comes before anybody in the city or the 16 county all the time. 17 What I find really remarkable about this project 18 is the high level of staff support and the fact that it’s 19 fully code-compliant. The fact that it’s fully code-20 compliant and conforms to the height standards, even falls 21 slightly under them as I understand them from the 22 presentations, I think undercuts the objection that I’m 23 hearing here from neighbors about outsized size, scale and 24 mass. If it fits the code, I’m sorry, it’s not outsized 25 66 and I -- I think that’s something that needs to be 1 recognized by HPC and read quite carefully. 2 I actually think this project is really 3 remarkable. It preserves and repurposes a historic asset, 4 which is laudable in itself while creating five affordable 5 housing units, which is a matter of grave community 6 concern and it does so, I believe, with an attractive 7 architectural solution that, indeed, is suitable to its 8 surroundings. It’s not out of scale with its 9 surroundings. 10 People who live in the neighborhood I can 11 appreciate their concern and their wish not to have 12 additional development on their block. That’s not unusual 13 to have that feeling but this kind of objection to 14 affordable housing is common and almost common to every 15 project. Everybody wants it. They just don’t want it 16 near them in their neighborhood. So, I struggle with that 17 kind of objection. I think this is a very laudable 18 project and I would encourage HPC to approve it. Thank 19 you. 20 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you for your comment. 21 We’re going to move onto Diane Wuslich, if I 22 pronounced that right. I apologize if I did not. 23 MS. WUSLICH: Can you hear me? 24 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, we can. 25 67 MS. WUSLICH: I just wanted to -- my name’s 1 Diane. I live on East Hyman -- 1007 East Hyman. I want 2 to just agree with Baron on all of his comments and then 3 ask a quick question before I start mine, which is have 4 any of residential guidelines, HOA documents, have any of 5 those been developed? 6 MS. THOMPSON: No, this would not be developed 7 until the project is further underway. Sorry, if I’m 8 speaking out-of-turn here for the applicant but I want to 9 make sure you get an agreement. 10 MS. WUSLICH: I would think some of the concerns 11 of the individuals in the neighborhood would be addressed 12 by providing living guidelines for the residences of this 13 new community -- uhm -- and then -- so that would be one 14 request and then, secondly, affordable housing is -- is 15 just that affordable but we were told on the last 16 conference call that the bedrooms or the units would not 17 be reduced in this building because they weren’t 18 financially feasible, which kind of says you’re -- you’re 19 saying we want to provide affordable housing but the 20 builder doesn’t want to cut back on his profit by cutting 21 back on units. So, it’s kind of using an oxymoron there 22 or a double standard. 23 On parking and cars, if there is an HOA document 24 developed or living requirement developed, if the 25 68 community believes that no cars will be -- uhm -- more 1 than four new cars added into the neighborhood, then write 2 that into the document that the individuals living into -- 3 in this new unit have to abide by a certain car maximum 4 per household to help out the capacity in the 5 neighborhood. 6 The -- uhm -- Cleveland Avenue that -- that 7 comes up to Cooper already is a dangerous area making a 8 left-hand turn as you go up the pass. Adding more cars 9 and -- uhm -- visitors into that unit would definitely 10 make that intersection more risky so we would need some 11 type of -- uhm -- amendment or something done on that 12 intersection so you have visibility to cars coming down 13 the pass to be able to make a left-hand turn and also 14 traffic within the alley. We have multiple units that all 15 have multiple different days trash pickup, recycling 16 pickup, snow removal -- uhm -- you know -- adding more 17 onto a one-way alley being a dead end is only going to 18 exasperate that so coming up with a solution to help all 19 these living concerns that people have raised I would 20 think would be really important. Pets, cars, traffic on 21 82, so why not give some reassurance to the individuals 22 that are on this conference calls bringing up valid 23 concerns. That might make us feel a little bit more 24 comfortable with the future state in a rental unit where 25 69 people will potentially be living one year, two years, in 1 and out of the units continually. 2 I think Lou said it best where we’re going to be 3 living with this for the next 10 to 20 years as a resident 4 or a homeowner in the neighborhood. Thank you. 5 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Diane. 6 Moving onto Emily is who I have next on my list. 7 Emily, if you’d like to make a comment please unmute. 8 Okay. I don’t think Emily has comment so we’re going to 9 move onto Hal. 10 Hal, if you have a comment please unmute. Okay. 11 We’re going to move on. I’m going to skip over 12 Jim and Jean from the applicant team and go to Jerome 13 Simecek. If you have a comment, would you please unmute? 14 MR. SIMECEK: Thank you. Jerome Simecek. I’m 15 with the Romero Group and are generally supportive of 16 employee housing. I think it’s imperative for the HPC to 17 look at this project on its merits. This seems to fit all 18 requirements. It is a compliant project with no variances 19 requested. If this project doesn’t fit or is not 20 approved, what project is approvable? If you’re complying 21 with all the requirements, I don’t know why it would not 22 be approved as it is. So, thank you very much. 23 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you, Jerome. 24 70 Okay. We’re going to move onto JR. JR, if you 1 have a comment please unmute. Okay. 2 Moving onto Julie Peters. Julie, if you can 3 unmute with a comment. Okay, we’re going -- 4 MS. ROBINSON: -- yes, I’m here, JR. Sorry 5 about that. Jamie Robinson, (indiscernible) East Cooper. 6 Sorry, I was trying to get my comment and I couldn’t find 7 the screen. Uhm -- so, my name’s Jamie Robinson. I’ve 8 owned a number of overdeveloped properties in town and -- 9 uhm -- I think that there’s a couple of things that need 10 to be noted. Obviously, all of the speakers are very well 11 informed. 12 First of all, I object to SkiCo’s comment that 13 nobody wants affordable housing in their neighborhood. 14 That’s not the case. It’s offensive and presumptive and 15 inappropriate. The -- the rule and the purview of the HPC 16 is to have development standards, especially within the 17 core, that -- that are well-known and so the affordable 18 cre -- the affordable housing program and/or credit are 19 being used here as a Hail, Mary for the developer who 20 could not make his numbers work to overbuild and 21 underprovide. 22 So, what that means is this house -- this 23 property at 1020 was -- uhm -- it’s extremely challenging, 24 as you know, and originally, it was considered historic 25 71 and then discovered that it wasn’t. But, regardless, it’s 1 an overdeveloped lot in the core and that’s the HPC’s 2 purview and we’re in a situation where it may be code 3 compliant to the extent that no variances are being 4 requested but it’s not appropriate or -- uhm -- and so, 5 the situation is that 1024 East Cooper was built with zero 6 setbacks. Nobody’s brought that up that one of the 7 adjacent neighbors is at zero setbacks and the other 8 neighbor is at significantly reduced setbacks. So, this 9 project is being squeezed in between two lots that were 10 overdeveloped and that’s not compatible and the role of 11 HPC, generally speaking, is specifically to -- to make 12 sure that development in the core is appropriate. 13 So, with regard to the project and the quantity 14 of units and the parking, I don’t believe -- uhm -- either 15 the -- the board or -- or -- you know -- I’m not sure 16 anybody’s actually even out there because there’s no room 17 for parking and there’s no room for what’s being 18 contemplated in terms of the negative impact to the 19 surrounding areas, which is a very clear requirement that 20 the HPC has to consider. It’s not just meeting the -- 21 meeting the code. Things meet the code all the time and 22 staff comes back with comments because of other negative 23 impacts and just like the focus on that and have the -- 24 have the HPC and staff really consider where the bicycles 25 72 being stored when the adjacent neighbors are at zero 1 setbacks. That’s unique. Normally you have double the 2 setback. In this case, you do not. 3 Where are the people walking? Where is the 4 cannabis use? Where are all of these things that are 5 legally allowed in Aspen and how is that going to be 6 provided for? 7 I’d also like to reinforce the point that the 8 unit sizes don’t meet the standard but they’re deviated -- 9 you know -- they’re set -- 10 MS. THOMPSON: -- Jamie, we’re over your time if 11 you wouldn’t mind wrapping up your comment please. 12 MS. ROBINSON: Okay. My concern is -- is with 13 the lack of -- I think amenity is a peculiar word. I -- I 14 would bring it to basic needs and I think that the unit 15 sizes -- the number of units need to be reduced so that 16 the negative impact, which is within the purview of the 17 HPC is -- is mitigated. 18 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you so much for calling in. 19 MS. ROBINSON: Thank you. 20 MS. THOMPSON: Okay, we’re going to move onto 21 Julie Peters. Julie, if you have a comment please unmute. 22 Okay. 23 MS. PETERS: Did it work? Hello. 24 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, I think it did. 25 73 MS. PETERS: Sorry. Thank you so much. Yes, 1 I’m Julie Peters and I live on the parallel parking space 2 to the property and I’ve spoken with many of my neighbors, 3 the Tashays, Penny from Sunrise, the Lassiters that live 4 behind Riverside and some neighbors in Chateau Clair and 5 we just want to say we in no way do not support employee 6 housing. I live in employee housing and another unit in 7 my building is employee housing so we feel we’re being 8 misrepresented in that aspect and we just want to stress 9 that we’re concerned about the alley, the impact of the 10 number of people and the number of cars. When these 11 buildings were built it was a drive-thru alley and it is 12 really difficult even now in the summertime there’s no 13 parking anywhere and in the winter after 9:00 o’clock on 14 Cleveland, Hyman and Cooper there’s very little parking to 15 be found even in the COVID times. So, thank you so much. 16 I appreciate you taking our comments. 17 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Julie. Okay. We’re 18 going to move onto Kristi Gilliam. Kristi, I know you’re 19 here, if you could unmute and make a comment. 20 MS. GILLIAM: Yes, thank you. Uhm -- I have to 21 agree, of course, with all of the people that have spoke 22 before me and that have not been in support of this. 23 Again, and I have to say, I love employees. We, out of 10 24 74 units at 1024 East Cooper four of them are -- are rent to 1 employees. So, we certainly love our employees. 2 This property -- uhm -- is too small for this 3 many people and I do find -- I -- I almost resent the way 4 y’all speak about people that own around y’all, around 5 this property. I moved to Aspen in ’95 when I was 31 and 6 I have worked my entire -- my entire life. I don’t think 7 I’ve taken a day off. I am a hard-working person -- uhm 8 -- and I’m not a rich person and I don’t think our 9 neighbors are rich people. This does affect us. 10 The lot that it is on and y’all’s photo that you 11 y’all show on it where it’s got the tree and the little 12 barbeque pit back there -- that tree is on our side of the 13 property. It may be two inches on theirs or on 1020 but 14 it’s on our side of the property and our fence right now 15 is on the opposite -- is on the -- you know -- on the 16 other side of the tree. That little area that looks green 17 and pretty is going to be no sun back there and nowhere 18 for anyone to go. 19 We have to be real about the cannabis because 20 kids getting off -- young adults getting off from work are 21 going to come home and smoke pot. It already -- every now 22 and again at our complex we have -- we catch someone 23 smoking pot and it goes all the way down the hallway. 24 This is something that’s a problem. 25 75 The gentleman from SkiCo that talked about how 1 he was for this, we had to change our entire rules at our 2 complex to only allow four people per three bedroom 3 because of the SkiCo employees that smoked pot all day 4 long, came in at all hours of the night. We love them. 5 They’re great. They’re -- you know -- everything else but 6 not when they’re the young adults and there are too many 7 of them in a unit which they were in our complex. 8 The front yard, I still have a huge problem with 9 where they’ve taken every bit of the grass away and 10 children can’t play. They can’t play in the front yard. 11 They can’t play in the backyard and they can’t play in the 12 alley. No one can tell us is it an all adult complex 13 where you’re not going to have children. Is it going to 14 be children mixed with people smoking pot and the windows 15 all open because it’s no AC in it? It’s too many people 16 for such a small piece of property and I think that that’s 17 fair to be -- to be bringing this up. We’ve asked to make 18 it smaller -- could he make it four -- and they’ve 19 absolutely said no on it. So, I just think that it’s -- 20 uhm -- it is going to be something that we’re going to be 21 left with. HPC is not going to manage this -- or APCHA 22 they have already said that they don’t think that they’re 23 going to be managing this. They may be able to say who’s 24 going to -- who’s going to -- uhm -- rent there after the 25 76 units are sold for high dollar to Mister -- after they’re 1 sold but it’s going to be a huge problem. 2 I mean y’all have to start thinking too about 3 the people that have lived there. My God, we’ve all paid 4 our dues. That’s all I have to -- I mean it just doesn’t 5 seem like it changes -- I mean at all. We just keep 6 dealing with the same thing and now it’s even worse. 7 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Kristi, for your 8 comments. 9 MR. MAYTIN: Hey, Kara. Hey, Kara, my name’s 10 Jay and you seem to be going in alphabetical order and you 11 seem to have skipped me over so I was wondering if I could 12 jump in on public comment. 13 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, I just actually saw you pop 14 up. So, I was going to call on you. Please go ahead. 15 MR. MAYTIN: Okay. So, thank you very much. I 16 have this much to read. You guys I chaired HPC for two 17 years. I sat on the board for seven years. I moved out 18 of the city housing and, unfortunately, I had to give up 19 my seat. I’ve been interested in this project for a long 20 time since I was on HPC and I’d been on it for seven years 21 but when it came around I wanted to -- to study and learn 22 about. So, here we go. 23 I want to talk about land use opposition and 24 historic preservation. I’ll go as quickly as I can. Last 25 77 -- this is less than code. It’s under code and in my 1 opinion, the HPC shouldn’t even be having a discussion at 2 this time about height density. There are no variances. 3 The customer or the client, the property owner almost has 4 a build-by-right right to build any project they want and 5 with no historic designation you might find an 8000-6 square-foot multi-family unit built on this property. 7 What could it look like? It could look like 16 500-8 square-foot ADUs with no public hearings, with no required 9 parking. Would that be better? You know there was a 10 single-family home proposed on this property and that 11 wasn’t acceptable to the neighbors either. So, what is 12 acceptable? 13 Both flanking HOAs allow short-term rentals. 14 Both flanking HOAs are complaining about long-term 15 rentals. A short-term rental has less investment in our 16 community. A long-term rental has plenty of investment in 17 your community and the neighborhood. 18 Lowering -- lowering property values has never 19 been the case in Aspen for an argument ever. Our property 20 values always increase. Okay. Neighbors have almost no 21 standing on any argument. There is no variance in this 22 application to even discuss. Things like height density 23 and use are not in question. No standing. Don’t even 24 78 take these comments into consideration about your 1 decision. 2 Park -- the only think I would take into 3 consideration on that is parking and they’ve gone above 4 and beyond and they should be rewarded for that. To be 5 honest with you this whole parking and discussion about 6 alley flow, they don’t need the parking. If you want to 7 solve the neighbors’ concerns put no parking in the alley 8 and make them do cash in lieu. Problem is solved. Okay. 9 The neighbors are also accusing the developer is 10 using HPC to get special treatment and I believe the 11 neighbors are using a questionable concern of the Lum 12 resource to accomplish their goal to have nothing built. 13 The current conditions created by the neighboring 14 development has burdened the Lum property. If those 15 neighbors are supportive of historic preservation, maybe 16 they can prove their non-conforming development to improve 17 the historic resource. We’re not going to penalize this 18 developer because the other ones got variances and don’t 19 have setbacks. Maybe 1024 could remove the stone wall on 20 the south side to help out the prominence of the Lum 21 resource. 22 Nonetheless, the good things about this and the 23 historic preservation site. The current surrounding 24 conditions are detrimental to the resource. It looks like 25 79 a property forgotten. The neighborhood development 1 overpowers the resource. The best way to improve the 2 situation is to move the resource forward, create -- and 3 create a medium-massed building to balance the site plan. 4 Although re-siting a historic resource is not a preferred 5 technique, it would be the best technique in this 6 situation due to the existing contentions -- existing 7 conditions. Simply moving the house forward would not fix 8 the issue alone. The proposed siting of the Lum home 9 brings more prominence to the resource but it needs more 10 massing to fit in the neighborhood. It needs the taller 11 proposed structure to help step down from the massing of 12 the enormous structures flanking on both sides. 13 The addition -- the unattached part of the 14 project is an amazing payoff. Look at the Fornell 15 property. Look at the Poppies property. They are some of 16 the best preservation projects. We’re preserving. 17 There’s no connector. We’re preserving the building 18 exactly how it is. Okay. 19 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, we’re -- 20 MR. MAYTIN: -- the new addition -- 21 MS. THOMPSON: -- can you -- 22 MR. MAYTIN: -- in the back helps to step it 23 down. The larger proposal is better for the residents and 24 don’t -- don’t -- don’t hurt these units. Don’t hurt 25 80 these ADUs by making them smaller. Don’t hurt the people 1 that are going to live in them for 40- or 50-square-feet 2 smaller. The bigger project is better for the community. 3 The project contributes to the largest concern facing our 4 community -- work force housing. 5 There are no negatives to this development. 6 There are no special requests from the developer. The 7 community needs HPC to look -- 8 MS. SIMON: -- three minutes -- 9 MS. THOMPSON: -- yeah, I have to -- 10 MR. MAYTIN: -- at the application and make the 11 right choice for preservation -- 12 MS. THOMPSON: -- sorry -- 13 MR. MAYTIN: -- of the Lum property. Thank you 14 very much. 15 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you so much. Okay. Uhm -- 16 okay, thank you, Jay, for your comments. I lost track. 17 Okay. We’re going to move onto Leisha John. 18 MS. JOHN: Hello. Good evening. I’m a former 19 resident of 1024 East Cooper and now I live across the 20 street at 1039 East Cooper and all for affordable housing 21 -- very much so, but I also object to the pure density of 22 this project and I -- honestly, I think it’s 23 unconscionable to have 12 or more people living on this 24 81 tiny sliver of land and like my neighbors on either side 1 of 1020 East Cooper, I’m concerned about quality of life. 2 Mainly when I use that term, quality of life, 3 I’m thinking about more cars, maybe 13 more cars and more 4 pedestrians. I see it every day in the summer. I’ve seen 5 it hundreds of times. People come off Independence Pass. 6 It could be the groups of Harleys. It could be the clubs 7 of sports car enthusiasts or just -- you know -- single-8 vehicle tourists. They all stop or try to stop right in 9 front of Riverside -- 1024 East Cooper. It’s where they 10 get their cell signal for the first time. It’s where they 11 get their bearings. It’s where they figure out where 12 they’re going to go next. They remove their jacket or 13 they put on their jacket. There’s always congestion right 14 in front of 1024 East Cooper because of that and my 15 concern is with this dense development that this area is 16 going to be even more overloaded with cars, basically 17 overflow of cars from 1020 East Cooper because there’s not 18 enough parking and I’m concerned about the danger that 19 that will cause. 20 So, that’s my main concern. I just wanted to 21 voice that. Thank you. 22 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you so much, Leisha. 23 82 Okay. So, it looks like I got muted there. 1 We’re going to move onto Marcy Alvis. Marcy if you have a 2 comment please unmute. 3 Okay. Next up is Mark. Mark if you have a 4 comment -- yeah. 5 MARK: I’m Mark. Can you hear me? 6 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, we can hear you. 7 MARK: My goodness, Jay was wound up. I’m not 8 sure what was going on there. I found it interesting that 9 the gentleman from the SkiCo was so in favor but I know 10 for a fact that they put two people per bedroom, so, 11 therefore, you have to look at the density when you look 12 at this particular project. Even though the developer 13 would like you to ignore it, it is a reality. 14 I own at 935 East Cooper. I have lived there 15 for 30 years. I have had employees live affordably on my 16 property next to me because I lived there as a tenant and 17 now I’m blessed to have -- to be able to have bought that 18 property and I have approximately four and a half bedrooms 19 and that would be nine people if I were to maximize it and 20 I’m a 6000-square-foot lot. So, you take a 4500-square-21 foot lot and you put the amount of people per bedroom -- 22 again, even though the developer would say, oh, don’t -- 23 don’t look at that, you have to look at that. 24 83 We’re the fashionable east end. We are 1 neighbors. This is a neighborhood. This is why you’re 2 getting the amount of comments that you’re getting. We’re 3 a neighborhood. It’s not just on the left and right of 4 the proposed building. It’s people all around. We’re 5 concerned about the quality of life and what’s there and I 6 don’t think that the developer should get one tiny foot 7 smaller than what’s required by code. 8 We can’t -- Roger was right. We -- if -- if you 9 want to change the parking code, you’ve got to go to city 10 council. We can’t change that but I know for a fact 11 there’s no parking even in the off-season on East Cooper 12 as it is now. You know you can talk about that these 13 people aren’t -- are going to get incentives. They’re 14 going to give them a We Cycle. They’re going to give them 15 bus passes. That’s -- that’s a bunch of malarkey. All my 16 tenants have cars. That’s just the way it is. All my 17 tenants -- and they’re all employees -- have three bikes. 18 They all have three sets of skis or two snowboards. 19 So -- you know -- you have to look at 20 realistically how this project will affect the property 21 and I’m glad that the Daily News is on because they’re 22 very responsible for creating a tremendous amount of BS 23 because nobody’s against this property because it’s 24 employee housing but (indiscernible) pieces out from 25 84 various places. She wrote an article that made it sound 1 like all the neighbors are, like, a bunch of rich people 2 that don’t care about employees. I found that extremely 3 offensive and I’m glad maybe when she writes the article 4 after today’s meeting she’ll correct herself because you 5 have a neighborhood where people care and I think that’s 6 very important and I think that as far as historic 7 preservation, you’re talking about neighborhood 8 preservation and it’s not like saying we don’t want 9 anybody there. We’re saying we’d just like it to be a 10 little bit more in reality to what’s needed for the area 11 and you cannot ignore -- and -- you know -- Mr. Corwin 12 left from the ski company but they’re maximizing every 13 bedroom so this is going to be a similar situation where 14 we’re going to maximize every bedroom. 15 So, I think that we need to make sure -- the HPC 16 needs to make sure every bedroom is the maximum size that 17 it’s supposed to be and has a closet because I think 18 that’s a requirement. To be considered a bedroom you have 19 to have a closet. I may be incorrect. 20 Again, the parking, that is a code issue but the 21 parking is definitely a huge problem. So, all I’m asking 22 -- 23 MS. THOMPSON: -- please wrap up -- wrap up your 24 comments please. 25 85 MARK: Oh, absolutely. I just would like HPC to 1 just look at it as it’s a bunch of neighbors concerned 2 about a neighborhood trying to make a project a little bit 3 better by making it a little bit less dense. That’s it. 4 Thank you all for your service. 5 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you so much, Mark. 6 Okay. We’re going to move onto I think it’s Meg 7 Eiger or M-E-G-E-I-G-E-R is what I’m reading here. 8 MS. GEIGER: Hi, yes, that’s apparently how my 9 e-mail shows up. This Mary Elizabeth Geiger. I am also 10 at Garfield and Hecht representing Riverside and Cooper 11 Avenue Victorian. 12 There’s been a lot of discussion about this 13 project being code compliant and if that’s all HPC had to 14 look at, well, then it wouldn’t be before HPC. I think 15 the important thing here is, first, before you go into 16 whether it’s code compliant or not with regard to setbacks 17 et cetera, is whether it meets the critical guidelines -- 18 the critical historic guidelines and the critical one here 19 is mass and scale. 20 At the January 13th, 2021 meeting there was a 21 lot of discussion about this. Mass and scale concerns 22 were mentioned by 13 people including commissioners. 23 Commissioner Moyer had stated that the mass and scale is 24 way too large and will not fit into the neighborhood, that 25 86 there were too many units. Commissioner Halferty stated 1 that as the project is presented the mass and scale is too 2 large. Commissioner Thompson agreed that the massing and 3 scale are a bit overwhelming and HPC needs to balance what 4 is reasonable to the site and Commissioner Kendrick agreed 5 with his fellow board members that the mass and scale is 6 too large. 7 I understand the applicant has come back and 8 made some changes, as was discussed, with regard to 9 reducing the roof height by a few feet, extending the 10 front yard by a foot and a half and changing the floor 11 area and those -- that’s great but it still does not get 12 there on the mass and scale. You are going to dwarf this 13 resource. It’s on a lot that is too small. 14 There’s been discussion saying, well, you know 15 the developer could do whatever it wanted to do because 16 they’re within the code. They actually can’t. This was 17 brought up at the last meeting. Without this historic 18 resource there would be no discussion about a multi-family 19 building on this site because it’s only 4300 square feet. 20 The only reason this is even in front of you guys is 21 because of that historic resource and that is -- needs to 22 be preserved and the mass and scale should be appropriate. 23 You know the goals for affordable housing are 24 commendable and I think everyone has said and made clear 25 87 that that’s not the issue but here that seems to have 1 dwarfed -- uhm -- both staff’s comments and the 2 applicant’s presentation. Affordable housing is sort of a 3 side note in my opinion with regard to the fact that 4 you’re looking at a historic resource and, again, the only 5 reason that affordable housing is even becoming part of 6 the conversation is because of that historical resource. 7 So, let’s not try to put -- let’s -- you know -- 8 it’s really a good project but it’s in the wrong place. 9 This is a lot that is too small. This is a small historic 10 resource and -- you know -- just because this project that 11 is presented isn’t appropriate doesn’t mean that nothing 12 is appropriate. 13 I think you guys gave some great feedback to the 14 applicant last time about looking at a reduction in the 15 number of units. That’s something that the neighbors had 16 discussed as well. Applicant has said that they weren’t 17 going to go that route but maybe that’s their prerogative 18 and maybe they just have the wrong project for the right 19 -- for this space. Thank you. 20 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mary. 21 Okay. We are going to move onto Michael Smith. 22 Michael, if you have a comment please unmute. Okay. 23 Moving onto Paulette -- there we go -- 24 MR. SMITH: -- can you hear me? 25 88 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, I can. 1 MR. SMITH: Sorry, I had to select my unmute 2 choices. Thank you. Sorry. 3 MS. THOMPSON: No problem. 4 MR. SMITH: So, yeah, we’ve heard a lot tonight 5 and it’s changed my comments but I’ve got to go back to 6 the commissioners -- Mary Elizabeth talked about it -- 7 expressed concern -- you know -- the size, the mass, 8 quote, way too large, too large, too overwhelming for the 9 historic structure. 10 What did the applicant do? The applicant 11 revised the proposal slightly -- you know -- removing no 12 units, not even a single bedroom so how responsive were 13 they to the comments of the commissioners? They basically 14 thumbed their nose at the commissioners. I mean I find it 15 offensive, made only a 3.7 percent reduction in floor area 16 and actually made the units less livable, reducing living 17 space without getting rid of a bedroom and storage space. 18 Okay. We’ve heard a lot from people about code 19 compliance, but what we’re talking about here is HPC 20 compliance and I’m (indiscernible) about it. I’ve been a 21 lot of time (indiscernible) -- and Jay Martin (sic) and 22 SkiCo, despite what they’re saying, this has to do with 23 HPC guidelines and I’m going to talk about few of them. 24 89 Let’s go to 1.1. In residential projects, quote 1 -- this is quoting -- setback-to-setback development is 2 typically uncharacteristic of the historic contents. Do 3 not design a project which leaves no useful open space 4 visible from the street. Well, this is a setback-to-5 setback development with extremely minimal pervious cover, 6 almost no useful open space, none visible from the street. 7 So, it’s not met despite -- you know -- the staff says 8 these are all met. They can’t just make it up. It’s not 9 met. 10 1.7, ensure that open space on site is 11 meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather 12 than many small unusable areas. Well, what do we have 13 here? Almost all the open space is in narrow impervious 14 walkways and staircases around the building. The tiny 15 little living area -- it’s 150-square-feet gathering area 16 that’s set up -- you know -- has got flagstone area. It’s 17 a gathering space and it’s really not meaningful and 18 certainly does not support and compliment the historic 19 building the way required by the guideline. 20 11.3, quote, construct a new building to appear 21 similar in scale and proportion with the historic building 22 on the parcel. There is no similarity in scale and 23 proportion between this three-story new building and the 24 90 single-story historic building. You just can’t say it is. 1 It’s -- it’s not true. 2 11.4, design a front elevation to be similar in 3 scale to the historic building. The primary plane of the 4 front elevation shall not appear taller than the historic 5 structure. There’s no doubt the ridge peak of this thing 6 stands 32 feet above grade. The historic is 15 -- you 7 know -- nobody can say that that meets that guideline. 8 Now, the neighbors have been consistently in 9 support of a properly scaled three-unit project -- you 10 know -- or maybe even a four-unit if they -- if they 11 limited the density and they could do that. The developer 12 -- we’ve talked to the developer. They’re unwilling to 13 limit the density of the -- of the use because they want 14 SkiCo to have, what, two people per bedroom. 15 Why does SkiCo love this thing? Because they 16 don’t pay a living wage. Let’s get to the reason why 17 there’s so much need for affordable housing but that 18 should not be what’s causing extra congestion on this non-19 conforming lot and Mary Elizabeth pointed out, this would 20 not be allowed on this lot but for the historic. So, they 21 are using it to bootstrap in not keeping in compliance 22 with the guidelines. 23 91 You can send it back. You can just deny it 1 because they thumbed their nose at you, but in any case, a 2 smaller project would be accepted by the neighborhood. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Could you please wrap up your 4 comments because we’re over on time? 5 MR. SMITH: Yep, I’m -- that’s done. Thank you. 6 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you so much. 7 Okay. Paulette Koffron, if you have a comment 8 please -- there we go. 9 MS. KOFFRON: Hi -- uhm -- I’m all for 10 affordable housing. I think it’s necessary but I have to 11 agree with what most have said. This project is oversized 12 for the lot, too many people in a small area. Uhm -- the 13 parking situation is going to be extremely difficult. I 14 have visions of driving in at 10:00 o’clock at night and 15 my parking spot has been taken because the people next 16 door, even though there’s buses and there’s this and 17 there’s that, people have cars. We drive and sometimes 18 people have one car per adult so there can be two cars per 19 unit and if they can’t park behind their unit, they’re 20 going to park somewhere else and I see myself coming home 21 and I have nowhere to park and I just think that -- uhm -- 22 the developer is just not listening to us at all. That’s 23 my comments. 24 92 MS. THOMPSON: All right thank you, Paulette, 1 for your comments. 2 We’re going to move onto Peter Fornell. 3 MR. FORNELL: Oh, hi, everyone and Kara, thank 4 you very much. I’ll be as quick as I can here. I’ve got 5 just a few bullet points and first, talking about the size 6 of the project. It’s been belabored but I just want to 7 say that the project meets code. I find it interesting 8 that everybody first wants to agree that the project meets 9 code and then they want to say that the size and scale 10 doesn’t fit. If the size and scale didn’t fit, it 11 wouldn’t meet the code. So, I don’t -- I don’t put any 12 validity in that. 13 You know the lot itself and the zone district 14 allows more than their requested FAR by special review. 15 Special review would allow this property to have a 1.25:1 16 ratio of floor area lot size and what’s more legitimate 17 for our community to be granted additional FAR through 18 special review than a 100 percent affordable housing 19 project? You know this project’s in the interest of the 20 community and I’ll tell you this much, if I was the 21 applicant I’d be coming and asking for a bigger project 22 than the one that they’re asking and the applicant should 23 be commended for the size and scale that they’re asking 24 for. 25 93 Next, the highest priority in council community 1 development and the community at large is given to 2 affordable housing by city council. Community Development 3 is recommending approval. You know -- the -- you guys on 4 the board do a good job and -- and it’s city council that 5 appoints you and you should have the knowledge of and 6 support of their goals in mind and support the best 7 notions for affordable housing that are being put out 8 there by our elected officials and our community leaders. 9 Next, I want to talk about the neighborhood 10 concerns. One thing that -- the one thing that bothers me 11 most is -- are the comments that have come with regard to 12 real estate property values. I have built three 13 affordable housing projects in town and in exact proximity 14 to those affordable housing projects have been 25- and 40-15 million-dollar spec houses that are a stone’s throw away 16 from those projects I’ve built. No one’s ever said I 17 don’t want to buy because of that or it’s not going to be 18 worth as much anymore because there’s no statistical 19 information being provided that properties surrounding 20 affordable housing projects have a lower annual rate of -- 21 of appreciation than other areas of town. It’s just not a 22 valid notion. 23 With regard to the parking, I get so tired of 24 hearing people use parking as an excuse for everything 25 94 that they don’t want around them but the -- the deal -- 1 the deal -- the bottom line is if the neighbors don’t like 2 the land use code, they’re voicing their concerns in the 3 wrong venue. That’s -- you know -- creating changes to 4 the land use code’s not your job. Changes to the land use 5 code are done at the city council level and the neighbors’ 6 attempt to change the code belongs at the council level, 7 not here. The 1020 application complies with the current 8 code and those concerns belong in another venue. 9 You know this -- this project itself is almost 10 identical to the project that I built at 518 Main. It is 11 -- it had a historic asset of a cabin of almost identical 12 size and scope and it fits in just fine with community. I 13 put 11 units on a 7500-square-foot lot and it’s one of the 14 shining examples of affordable housing development in 15 town. 16 MS. THOMPSON: Peter, if you wouldn’t mind 17 wrapping up your comments please. 18 MR. FORNELL: Yeah, I’ve just got two -- two 19 more and I think I’ve been brief. The -- the building’s 20 code compliant. I think that a denial here exceeds 21 authority. The -- you know -- there’s good development 22 and there’s bad development in our town. A 100 percent 23 affordable housing project represents good development and 24 finally, everybody kind of gets their information from 25 95 local newspaper and I’m coming from having read last 1 week’s Aspen Daily News article and I have to, as a 2 citizen of the community, take a personal offense to the 3 statement that was made by Buck Carlton who said that he 4 doesn’t like what’s going on because he thinks affordable 5 housing should be put outside town and at the Airport 6 Business Center. I just think that that is a total slap 7 in the face to the 7000 residents that live here. Thanks 8 a lot. 9 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Peter, for your 10 comment. 11 Board, at this time I’m going to move to extend 12 the meeting. Okay. 13 MR. MOYER: Second that motion. I was going to 14 bring that up with you actually. 15 MS. THOMPSON: You’re way ahead of me, Rog. All 16 in favor. 17 MR. KENDRICK: Aye. 18 MR. HALFERTY: Aye. 19 MS. THOMPSON: Aye. 20 MR. MOYER: Aye. 21 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. We’ve got it. 22 All right, let me come back here. Uhm -- next 23 we have Philip Jeffreys. Philip, if you have a comment 24 please unmute. There we go. 25 96 MR. JEFFREYS: I do. Can you hear me? 1 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 2 MR. JEFFREYS: Great. Thanks, everyone. I’m a 3 project manager. Philip Jeffreys, project manager for the 4 Aspen Skiing Company, working on workforce housing. I am 5 an advocate for housing in the community and speak for our 6 employees on the issue. 7 Before starting I wanted to congratulate staff 8 on a really thoughtful analysis. The staff report goes 9 deep into some of the core issues facing our community. 10 I wanted to also say that I’ve been on both 11 sides of this. I’ve been an applicant of affordable 12 housing but also a neighbor with concerns regarding 13 affordable -- adjacent affordable housing and, first of 14 all, I sympathize completely with the neighborhood and the 15 neighbors. Change is always very emotional especially in 16 this crazy -- in these crazy times. New construction is 17 always jarring. I get it and I’m sorry but we cannot make 18 decisions of this magnitude on emotion. 19 I believe, HPC, your job is to listen and 20 sympathize with the neighbors but examine this application 21 on the facts. Have the setbacks been met? Has the 22 historic resource been protected? Does it meet our 23 community goals? Does it meet the zoning? This project 24 clearly does. 25 97 As clearly stated in the ACP, housing diversity 1 is critical to a healthy and sustainable community. We 2 cannot continue to exist as a place when all that gets 3 built in this town is housing for the 0.1 percent. We 4 have an obligation to house a broad cross-section of our 5 community. 6 I would ask you tonight to put the opposition 7 into context. There will always be opposition to a 8 project like this. That opposition will be vocal. It 9 will be passionate. It will be motivated. Those who 10 benefit from this project will never attend these 11 meetings. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have a voice. 12 Please keep the silent majority and our community’s 13 greater goals in mind when you vote tonight. Thank you so 14 much. 15 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Philip. 16 Okay. We’re going to move onto Raymond Stover 17 and we heard from Lou first so, Ray, do you have anything 18 to add? 19 MR. STOVER: Can you hear me? 20 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, we can hear you. 21 MR. STOVER: Okay. I’ve, of course, echo all my 22 neighbors’ concerns. My larger concern though is -- you 23 know -- this is multi-family residential. This is not 24 companies buying dormitory. This -- from all the sound of 25 98 it, companies such as SkiCo, are going to buy these units 1 and then put their employees in them. You know this is 2 the neighborhood of somebody. Actually, as so many of our 3 neighbors have said, this is not -- I don’t want to live 4 next to a dormitory. I very much want to live next to 5 three, four, if necessary, even five families. I don’t 6 want to have this turned into subsidized housing so that 7 we’re subsidizing SkiCo or whoever. It’s just wrong. 8 It’s out of character. It’s everything. It’s wrong for 9 the neighborhood. It’s wrong. I can’t say really 10 anything other than, hey, let’s make it multi-family. 11 That’s what the zoning is for. It’s not for a frat house. 12 Thank you very much. 13 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Ray. 14 Okay. We’re going to move onto Robert 15 Sonderman. Robert, if you have a comment -- okay. 16 MR. SONDERMAN: Yeah, we live in 1020 East 17 Durant, just one block away and we walked past the 18 property. I think the renderings show that the cottage or 19 the miner’s cabin will have the same appearance but 20 probably more attractive. The current white building 21 looks a little rundown and so to maintain a historic 22 miner’s cabin and to, at the same time, put in five 23 affordable units I think is a win for the neighborhood. 24 Thank you. 25 99 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you so much. 1 Okay, moving onto Sarah Lasser. Sarah, if you 2 have a comment. 3 MS. LASSER: Thank you, all. My name is Sarah 4 Lasser and I’m here representing ACRA and our business 5 community this evening and I thank HPC for taking public 6 comment tonight. 7 ACRA does want to provide positive comments in 8 support of this project on behalf of our broader business 9 community. ACRA and the local businesses believe 10 attracting and retaining top talent that is engaged and 11 committed to this town necessitates sufficient workforce 12 housing within the city limpits -- within the city limits. 13 Attracting long-term employees is a challenge that our 14 local businesses continue to face and we believe this 15 additional housing will help support and sustain their 16 business operations. 17 Also, ACRA believes this talent positively 18 contributes to the lifestyle that so many of us were first 19 attracted to in this community and we also believe these 20 employees are essential to maintaining Aspen’s charm and 21 character. Part of that charm and historic character is 22 the pedestrian friendly nature of Aspen and this project 23 will give employees the ability to both live in town and 24 100 make their way to work without adding more vehicular 1 traffic to our roads. 2 These potential employees, who are in need of 3 this type of housing, truly come from a cross-section of 4 industries including first responders, ER nurses, 5 frontline essential workers, teachers and hospitality 6 workers, to name a few. In order to maintain our local 7 business economy, we need this workforce housing to 8 sustain our employees, which will enable our resort and 9 local economy to thrive. 10 I’m actually one of these employees who lives in 11 employee housing with my husband and our three-year-old 12 son and I can tell you our one-bedroom became much cozier 13 when our son arrived. Based on our proximity of our 14 housing though to our preschool and ACRA’s office I’m 15 actually able to bike or walk throughout town, walk to 16 work, walk to school without the need of a car just as 17 this project will provide for those employees. 18 My husband and I both positively contribute to 19 this community and we will raise our son to do the same, 20 which I believe this employee housing will offer families 21 to do so and invest in this community. Our longevity is 22 made possible in Aspen because of this employee housing. 23 101 ACRA is in support of this project and we do 1 appreciate HPC taking the time to hear from the business 2 community. Thank you. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Sarah. 4 All right, we’re moving onto Scott McDonald. 5 Scott, if you have a comment please unmute. It’s star 6 six, again. I haven’t been repeating that. If you’re on 7 your cellphone, it’s star six. 8 Okay. We’re going to move onto Stephen Abelman. 9 MR. ABELMAN: Can you hear me? 10 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, I can. 11 MR. ABELMAN: Hello. 12 MS. THOMPSON: Hi. 13 MR. ABELMAN: Great. Thank you for -- thank you 14 for hearing from us. My wife and I live at 1012 East 15 Cooper right next to the proposed 1020 homes. We are also 16 very much in -- you know -- in complete approving of 17 affordable housing next door or anywhere in Aspen -- uhm 18 -- I -- we are only asking that the number of people -- 19 the volume of people -- you know -- we’re looking at this 20 project. I know there’s economic issues and -- you know 21 -- saying they need (indiscernible) five units. What I 22 was looking at when Kevin was talking about the FTE 23 credits you could put together three three-bedroom units 24 there and get nine credits so it’s somewhat of a 25 102 compromise but still gives opportunity for the developer 1 to make something and also give the ultimate residents of 2 1020 Cooper much nicer living lifestyle. 3 You know and I do agree the lawyer that talked 4 about the income levels of people in Aspen. The -- I also 5 agree that we should be paying the people who are to 6 support our town higher wages so that they have multiple 7 choices where they’d like to live in the city. 8 You know I have to say we are discouraged with 9 the outcome of this proposed updated application. The 10 very minor mass and scale changes are just disappointing 11 and actually do make the situation worse as -- you know -- 12 how many people the developer plans to put on this small 13 property. Please, we need all of you to address the fact 14 that 24 to 26 people will be living on this property. 15 When you hear the comments by SkiCo and that, putting two 16 people in a bedroom because -- you know -- five units, 17 three three-bedroom, two two-bedrooms -- please, I mean 18 we’re going to be living with cars, trucks, dogs, cats, 19 visitors, children. It’s a lot going on in one property. 20 We feel even though everything complies by 21 having a sense of decency -- it’s not caring to have so 22 many people living on top of each other. There’s not 23 enough outdoor space, parking and living area to -- to 24 accommodate the number of units and people. Please think 25 103 of it from a health perspective. It’s just too many 1 people. 2 We feel that the ultimate decision on the size 3 of this (indiscernible) project is being driven by whether 4 or not the developer can make a significant profit on 5 building this project. So, we’re going to base the 6 (indiscernible) comment on neighborhood (indiscernible) 7 families function and whether there is enough profit for 8 the developer. If this is the case, shame on all of us. 9 Along with (indiscernible) additional area just to live 10 and exist, sitting outside, smoking a cigarette, 11 (indiscernible), visiting family and friends, outdoor 12 barbeque, home maintenance and repairs, deliveries, 13 garbage, recycle functions, all these are functions that 14 are there on a daily basis so (indiscernible) in our 15 lives. Even when there are only two to four people on a 16 property, the above daily events take a lot of space. 17 When you consider 20 to 26 people living on a property 18 just the simple needs of living in a space will grow 19 exponentially. 20 Please, for the sake of the ultimate residents 21 of 1020 East Cooper and the surrounding neighborhood, use 22 some sound reason in regards to your decisions on whether 23 this project should move forward in the present proposed 24 size. Thank you. 25 104 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Stephen. 1 Okay. Moving onto Thomas Todd. Thomas, if you 2 have a comment please unmute. 3 Okay. Tiffany Smith. Tiffany do you have a -- 4 okay. 5 MS. SMITH: As I’m sure you’re painfully aware, 6 my name is Tiffany Smith and I live at 1012 East Cooper. 7 My concern with the latest application is that the minor 8 changes though attractive are basically meaningless. They 9 don’t adequately address the main concerns of both the 10 neighbors and three members of the HPC board per our last 11 meeting. The addition is still too massive and overwhelms 12 the historic cabin. The lot is still gobbled up by 13 structures and hardscapes and there was no reduction in 14 the number of bedrooms or units. Thus, the application 15 really does not meet HPC guidelines 1.1, 1.7, 11.3 and 16 11.4 nor does the lot even meet minimum width code despite 17 what’s been said earlier. City staff has simply chosen to 18 (indiscernible) gone -- 19 UNKNOWN MALE: -- you just cut out -- 20 MS. SMITH: -- oh, can you hear me -- gone are 21 the issues other citizens would have to address. In fact, 22 city staff rubberstamped without question every single 23 thing in both applications that the developers wanted and 24 in doing so they abdicated all responsibility for 25 105 meaningfully preserving the 1020 historic resources and 1 acknowledging the difficulties this large five-unit 2 complex that has no living restrictions will have on the 3 entire neighborhood. Issues such as too little dedicated 4 parking, too many residents crammed into a tiny lot, 5 adding traffic to an already crowded one-way dead-end 6 alley, additional noise, garbage and so on. 7 And let’s be clear, I am not afraid of change, 8 nor am I at all against an affordable housing complex at 9 this site. However, 1020 is not likely to truly represent 10 the multi-family in our RMF or it would have been designed 11 completely differently and they’d probably be willing to 12 compromise on the number of units. Due to the lack of any 13 commitment by the developer to an active category rating 14 of three or four or any HOA rules regarding max number of 15 residents, it leaves me to believe that there will be no 16 adorable toddlers and strollers or little soccer players 17 at this complex. However, money is on it being filled 18 with young SkiCo and Lift One employees and their 19 transient, high-octane lifestyle and cars and potentially 20 leaving this property to be another animal house of Aspen 21 affordable housing and unfortunately, ultimately, another 22 employee ghetto. But who cares really? It’s only the 23 east end, right, where high density is now the name of the 24 game but even if you can build high density, should you? 25 106 How many Aspenites will truly benefit from this project 1 and how many won’t? 2 In closing, HPC Board, please be the voice of 3 reason and do not approve this project as is, which would 4 set the benchmark for these types of shady deals from now 5 on. Please put this historic -- this rare historic lot 6 and cabin and existing multi-family neighborhood first and 7 please prove that the fix really is not in. 8 Thank you so much for your service to Aspen. 9 I’m off -- I’m done. 10 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you, Tiffany. 11 Okay. Did -- I’ve gone through my list. Is 12 there anybody else here from the public that I -- that I 13 accidentally skipped over that would like to make a 14 comment tonight? 15 MR. JACOBS: Hello, can you hear me? 16 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 17 MR. JACOBS: Hello there. My name’s Ross Jacobs 18 and I don’t have a whole lot else to add but I’d like to 19 echo what a lot of my neighbors have said. I’ve lived 20 here for 30 years and I’ve -- all three of my children 21 were born at the Aspen Hospital. All three of them picked 22 raspberries in Su Lum’s backyard when it grew over onto 23 our property at 1012 East Cooper. 24 107 I’m currently at the airport unloading baggage. 1 I work. This is a neighborhood. We’ve been characterized 2 as a whole bunch of rich people that don’t want our 3 property values to decline and that’s not the case. I’d 4 be delighted to see a few families move in next door -- 5 working families but to see five families stuffed into 6 that -- that small lot -- that’s not what it was for. It 7 seems like this is meant to maximize the profit of the 8 developer and it’s not good for the neighborhood. I hope 9 HPC does what they should and stick to their -- their 10 rules. Thank you very much. 11 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you. Okay. Is there 12 anybody else that would like to make a comment that I 13 missed? Okay. 14 Amy, we have public comments that we’ve received 15 and I know are entered into the record. Do we need to 16 state what those are tonight or are we good on that? Oh, 17 you’re still muted. 18 MS. SIMON: Good. Okay. Sorry. We have 19 received comments after the packet deadline that have been 20 e-mailed to you separately. Many of those authors have 21 spoken tonight. I can briefly summarize the ones that 22 were not presented if you’d like me to but, otherwise, you 23 have received them. 24 108 MS. THOMPSON: I’ve read all the comments and I 1 believe the rest of the -- it sounds like the rest of the 2 board has read all of the comments. 3 MR. KENDRICK: I have read them all. 4 MR. MOYER: I have read everything I have 5 received. 6 MR. HALFERTY: As have I. 7 MS. THOMPSON: I think we’re good there. We 8 received all of that information. Okay. So, I’m going to 9 -- sorry, I can’t remember my exact next step here -- uhm 10 -- 11 MS. SIMON: -- Kara, I believe that the 12 applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal to public 13 comment if they’d like to take that. 14 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, that’s -- that’s where I was 15 going. Sara. 16 MS. ADAMS: Hi, Kara. Thanks so much and 17 thanks, everybody, for hanging in there. I know it’s 18 after 7:00 and you probably haven’t even had a chance to 19 give your comments yet so I’m going to keep this really 20 brief. 21 There’s a lot of good info for council policy 22 discussion from the neighbors but that’s really not why 23 we’re here. As we’ve said many times, we meet the code. 24 We meet adopted policy. We meet the Aspen Area Community 25 109 Plan. We’re under floor area. We’re under height. We’re 1 contextual with the neighborhood and we exceed the parking 2 requirement. I would hate to think that the community 3 wants to prioritize parking over housing employees. 4 I want to be clear that the council remand was 5 to address the tree, the fence and to conduct much better 6 outreach than the past project. What we -- what we can’t 7 do is reduce the density and keep this a viable affordable 8 housing, deed-restricted project. We just -- we can’t do 9 that and make the numbers work. 10 What we can do is we can agree to limit the 11 occupancy to no more than one unrelated adult per bedroom. 12 We’ll voluntarily do that. We hear the neighbors loud and 13 clear and that’s something that we agree to put in as a 14 condition of approval that we would limit occupancy to no 15 more than one unrelated adult per bedroom. 16 We’re also amenable to looking at restrictions 17 in our HOA documents. We’ll consult with APCHA but we 18 feel strongly that neighborhoods should not dictate 19 lifestyle. That should be something that’s in our HOA 20 documents that we work with APCHA to develop and shouldn’t 21 be coming from the neighbors. 22 We want this project to happen and as a 23 community we really need this project to happen. There 24 are hundreds of locals on wait lists for affordable 25 110 housing units and I think that’s the most significant 1 public support you could possibly have for this project. 2 Thank you. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Sara. All right. I’m 4 going to close the public portion of the meeting and, 5 Board Members, I’m going to request a two-minute recess if 6 that’s okay. We can -- I’m just going to run to use the 7 restroom and then we can come back and have our 8 discussion. Okay. I will be right back. 9 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 10 BOARD DISCUSSION: 11 MS. THOMPSON: All right, it looks like we’re 12 all back and ready to go. 13 Board discussion. First, though I did want to 14 say thank you to everybody from the public who’s called in 15 tonight. We understand this is a really important project 16 to a lot of people and we appreciate the time that you 17 spent to give us all of your feedback. 18 I think, as a board, there’s -- there’s a lot 19 for us to kind of think about tonight. There -- we have a 20 handful of HPC guidelines, which are guidelines that we 21 can -- we need to go through and then we also have a 22 handful of land use code items that we need to go through. 23 So, some of this -- all of the HPC stuff, those are 24 guidelines. The land use code is not subjective and we 25 111 have to follow -- in order to do our jobs, we have to 1 follow what the code is stating. 2 There are a lot of things that have been 3 discussed tonight that I think are excellent points for 4 council. Unfortunately, we can’t do much about a lot of 5 those points but I do think that they are good points to 6 be brought up in a different venue. So, hopefully, the 7 neighbors can get some resolution on -- on all of that. 8 I also do want to note that we have to -- as a 9 board, we have to rely on staff’s evaluation of this 10 application and we have to rely on the evaluation that the 11 Building Department -- that the different departments of 12 the city do and send us and are included in our packet 13 because I don’t think it’s possible for us to be that -- 14 that thorough. So, I know we all know we rely on that 15 quite a bit. 16 So, I want to start with our conceptual major 17 development guidelines if that’s okay with you guys and 18 talk a bit about the mass and scale and the revisions the 19 applicant has made specific to our conceptual major 20 development review. Does anyone want to start that part 21 of the discussion tonight? Jeff. 22 MR. HALFERTY: Yes, I am. Just on mass and 23 scale, yeah, thank you, good project. You know it’s 24 always fun to deal with -- you know -- it’s a very tough 25 112 zone. We’re not in the R6 zone. If we were in the R6 1 zone, there’d be a lot of different I think comments from 2 our board. 3 Concerning mass and scale -- uhm -- I think the 4 applicants have gone a good deal in trying to reduce the 5 mass to the historic resource. I think the -- you know -- 6 the addition of the dormer, for example, I wasn’t in favor 7 of it at first but it’s not part of the historic resource 8 and that’s the way that they were trying to take the mass 9 from the back addition and put it on the resource. I do 10 feel it complies. Like we talked about, no variances are 11 required. There’s been a reduction in scale on the 12 addition and it’s a tough project. It’s challenging 13 because it’s a small, low-profile historic resource and 14 any kind of addition you do to it, no matter what the 15 separation is, is going to seem taller but I always look 16 for the context on the next door and neighboring projects 17 and I understand the concerns of the neighbors, without 18 question. 19 There’s been a lot of great comments both for 20 and against the project and as far as mass and scale, 21 again, comparing it to our guidelines, what we -- our 22 purview is to protect the historic resource, I do feel it 23 complies with the mass and scale when it comes to what our 24 purview is and it’s the height and scale itself. 25 113 As far as the mass and scale part of it, if 1 you’re asking, Kara, I think it does comply with our 2 guidelines and I could support it. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah, I would agree with that and 4 I -- I appreciate the revisions that have been made, 5 specifically, on the alley. I think that’s a significant 6 improvement to that façade. I know this board has talked 7 a bit about making the alley more designed and not -- and 8 something nice to look at. So, I think that revision 9 there really helps and I appreciate the applicant 10 listening to our feedback on that. 11 I do agree with you, Jeff. I was originally 12 hesitant about the dormer. In the roofline, it looks like 13 it meets the ridge of the -- the main structure and my 14 only comment there would be if we could look at lowering 15 the height of that so it’s a little bit further down but, 16 in general, I agree with all your comments as well. 17 MR. KENDRICK: Going back to the mass and scale, 18 I appreciate all the efforts that the applicant put into 19 the redesigning and I think it is a nicer design. In the 20 end though, I don’t think it really affects the mass and 21 scale that much. I do think it’s still too dense for the 22 -- for the site and it still overwhelms the historic 23 resource. 24 114 MR. MOYER: I -- I agree with Scott. I feel 1 that the mass and scale is too much period. 2 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. That’s problematic here. 3 We’ve got a split -- split board. We’ll have to talk 4 about that more. 5 MR. KENDRICK: Well, I think from the standpoint 6 of -- you know -- the whole idea that this project is code 7 compliant I think is -- you know -- a bit misleading. If 8 it weren’t for the historic designation on the property, 9 this project wouldn’t be allowed. It’s a non-conforming 10 lot. It’s very small and slapping an HPC designation on 11 it is not -- you know -- free rein to build to the limits 12 of the code. I think our -- our purview is still to 13 protect the historic resource. I know there are a lot of 14 things that we have to take into consideration in terms of 15 context. I just -- I feel that this -- this lot is just 16 so small. It’s so tight. It’s a tough balancing act 17 between the neighboring buildings that tower over it. I 18 just -- I feel like it needs more space. The historic 19 resource -- it just is swallowed up in a canyon of 20 buildings towering over it. 21 MS. THOMPSON: I guess. I don’t -- I don’t 22 agree. I don’t think that we can say that this is a non-23 conforming lot. Nearly all of the projects that we look 24 at -- or a ton of projects that we looked at in the west 25 115 end are on smaller lots than the historic so I don’t think 1 it’s fairly characterized as non-conforming. It conforms 2 to our land use code. 3 MR. HALFERTY: Right, and I think what Scott 4 said about, like, the canyon effect. They are adjacent 5 projects -- large projects. (indiscernible) zoned for. 6 This is an anomaly. I agree we’ve got to keep the scale 7 smaller but at the same time, like, we’re trying to 8 genuflect to the neighbors but most importantly our 9 purview is to the historic resource and -- you know -- as 10 far as the land use code -- you know -- I feel it does 11 comply with the land use code. 12 I agree our purview is to protect this historic 13 resource and the applicant has made some modifications to 14 make the scale smaller. So, I’m interested 15 (indiscernible) what else the board has to say. 16 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah, it’s interesting because 17 the two adjacent properties are so much taller and then 18 the way I view the project the addition in the back steps 19 down -- uhm -- and kind of mitigates that scale between 20 the smaller miner’s cabin and the larger multi-family 21 structures. 22 We don’t review a lot of projects in the RMF 23 zone district. This is -- the RMF zone district allows 24 for more massive structures. So, any location where we 25 116 have a single-story residence in RMF we’re going to have 1 this -- the same issues and I think that this project 2 actually by not having -- by not connecting the -- the 3 resource with the addition, we have a different set of 4 guidelines. Our guidelines apply differently and I think 5 that that is incredibly appropriate for this -- for this 6 lot but it doesn’t sound -- I don’t know, Roger. 7 MR. MOYER: How do you keep this stupid thing to 8 unmute and -- it -- it keeps clicking off on me when I 9 hold the key down. 10 MS. THOMPSON: I don’t know. Is someone 11 controlling you? 12 MR. GRAHAM: Hi, Roger. It’s Wes. We have to 13 keep muting you because the feedback coming from your 14 computer is drowning out everyone. So, let’s just unmute 15 it or not. 16 MR. MOYER: My computer. 17 MR. GRAHAM: Let’s just stay muted if you’re not 18 speaking. Okay. Thank you. 19 MR. MOYER: Well, I’d like to speak now. 20 MS. THOMPSON: Go for it. 21 MR. MOYER: Okay. This project -- there’s 22 another aspect to the whole thing and that’s livability 23 and I’ve spent a lot of time in employee housing units 24 because of my business and I’m observing one which is 25 117 diagonal across the street from where I live and already 1 the entrances are full of stuff because there’s not enough 2 space. There’s not enough storage and we forget that 3 people are going to live in these and they have a lot 4 items that they need to have a place to put somewhere and 5 even the building which I live in, which is a 10-unit 6 building there’s not space for all of the implements that 7 people have. So, I look at this and it’s definitely too 8 large but then again, it’s too small. 9 If it were three units, it would work but five 10 units is not a livable place and therefore, because it 11 still is too small, I’m looking at it as a lot of -- I’m 12 discounting the buildings on either side. I’m imagining 13 it’s anywhere in the west end of Aspen and I’m not taking 14 those into consideration. The structure behind this tiny 15 little miner’s cabin is simply too large so I cannot 16 support it. Thank you, everybody. 17 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. I mean I think that’s a 18 challenge, Roger and I think that goes against our 19 guidelines because we are required to view the context of 20 the site and that’s what makes these -- uh -- these 21 guidelines subjective which is part of what we’re tasked 22 with. 23 MR. MOYER: I have said time and time again that 24 we’ve approved so many projects around town that are 25 118 pretty darn big and we really need to look at this as an 1 overall issue and I know that -- that’s not in this 2 particular one but the -- the -- uhm -- reduction from 3 what we asked for last time -- and I agree with Scott -- 4 is really minimal and it’s not enough. 5 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Well, we’re not going to 6 get anywhere with a split board. 7 Scott, do you have any additional comments? I 8 mean I -- this is really a challenge because there’s two 9 of us (indiscernible) -- 10 MR. KENDRICK: -- let me ask a question -- 11 MS. THOMPSON: -- yes -- 12 MR. KENDRICK: -- also, a comment. The AVS 13 version of the -- of this app -- of this project as a 14 single-family home was smaller than this -- correct -- and 15 it was not approved? 16 MS. THOMPSON: Uhm -- it was continued. It was 17 approved once with a vote of four to two. 18 MR. KENDRICK: But it was a smaller project and 19 we had asked for a size reduction. 20 MS. SIMON: Scott, if I can interrupt. That 21 single-family home did receive conceptual approval from 22 HPC. When it was sent to council for callup, they 23 remanded it to the board for a consideration, I think as 24 Kara had said, it was at least in part about preservation 25 119 of a tree and some fence concerns and in the midst of your 1 remand discussion that applicant withdrew and sold the 2 property. 3 MR. KENDRICK: Okay. Thank you. 4 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah, those are -- but those are 5 very different applications. That was a single-family 6 residence. The floor area allotments were totally 7 different. They were asking for -- if I recall correctly 8 -- they were asking for setback variations. There was a 9 lot going on there that I don’t think we can say these are 10 equal applications and they had a linking element. They 11 were connecting to -- to the structure. So, to me, this 12 is drastically different. 13 MR. KENDRICK: I understand that the linking 14 element -- you know -- makes -- makes a difference in how 15 we view it. It’s just they’re so -- they’re so close 16 together though and the -- the secondary unit behind the 17 historic resource is so large that you would never know if 18 there’s a linking element or not unless you’re -- you know 19 -- walking between the buildings. 20 MS. THOMPSON: I mean I think it -- I think it 21 will be perceived that they’re separate but I guess that’s 22 why we’re here to evaluate how we (indiscernible). 23 MR. HALFERTY: There’s certainly a clear 24 separation between the historic resource and the new 25 120 addition. It will perceived -- I understand Scott’s point 1 because it’s bookended by two structures -- you know -- 2 how does the public perceive, which is, again, our purview 3 to adhere to our guidelines but -- you know -- the 4 consequent retrievability -- you know -- for a historic 5 resource is clearly met without the (indiscernible) 6 elements (indiscernible) that argument as well. 7 MS. THOMPSON: So, guys, where do we go from 8 here. I -- I mean, like I said, I think that stepping 9 back that porch and we’ve talked about this on other 10 projects but variation in façades is so significant 11 architecturally in making a massing difference and I think 12 that what they’ve done here accomplishes that for me at 13 least. 14 Scott, is there -- what could improve this in 15 your opinion? 16 MR. KENDRICK: I mean realistically I think it 17 just needs to be less units so the overall scale of the 18 building can be smaller. 19 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah, but that’s out of the -- I 20 mean we can't really -- I don’t think we can discuss that. 21 That’s not -- the number of units and the number of 22 people. 23 MR. KENDRICK: I -- I get that but at the same 24 time, I think that -- you know -- I don’t know that you 25 121 can make it smaller while maintaining the amount of units. 1 I just -- I don’t think it’s practical. I don’t think 2 it’s possible. 3 If you were to look at the two -- the south 4 elevations -- the originally proposed and the current 5 proposal, I just -- side by side, I just don’t see that 6 much of a difference and to me that seemed like a clear 7 request of HPC after the -- the last meeting. 8 MS. THOMPSON: I agree. I think it’s a hard -- 9 I mean that -- the variation and the depth of that façade 10 isn’t going to come across in a 2D elevation. 11 MR. HALFERTY: Yeah. 12 MS. THOMPSON: I think it does come across in 3D 13 views. 14 MR. HALFERTY: Right. 15 MS. THOMPSON: Which, to me, as an architecture 16 I think those are a lot more important and show how you’re 17 going to experience the project. 18 MR. HALFERTY: And I think the applicant and the 19 architect are trying to keep the spaces as big as they can 20 be because of the use of the units. They’re trying to 21 keep the plate heights high so that they have livable 22 spaces and some volume there. So, even though they 23 reduced it whatever it, I think it was (indiscernible) on 24 the ridge or whatever it was -- uhm -- I understand the 25 122 point because we had a very low profile, very small 1 atypical miner’s cabin that is lower in scale than a 2 typical one that we see on the west end. It’s got a lower 3 ridge height so any addition you put on the back is going 4 to seem tall. So, I understand where Scott and Roger are 5 coming from but looking at our guidelines and looking at 6 the adjacent structures and how the overall impact is of 7 the structures is, I can see both sides of the argument. 8 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah, I guess a more specific 9 question is, Scott, are you saying without a third -- 10 without that upper level, without dormers up there, 11 without, like, what would -- without saying removing 12 units, what are -- what would improve the massing? 13 MR. KENDRICK: Well, again, we’re not meant to 14 design the projects. I mean I haven’t really looked at 15 that -- with that kind of eye or anything but -- 16 MS. THOMPSON: -- yeah, but we’re going to have 17 to give specific feedback. I think -- I know it’s 18 subjective here but I think we gave feedback to 19 (indiscernible) to create some variations in the front 20 elevation of the addition and they did that. So, I think 21 we need to be consistent with our -- consistent and 22 specific with our feedback. 23 123 MR. MOYER: Well, perhaps instead of having a 1 three-story addition, we need to have a two-story to be 2 compatible with the tiny miner’s cottage. 3 MR. KENDRICK: Right. When you’re going from a 4 one-story historic resource to a three-story secondary 5 structure, that’s -- that’s a lot. That being said -- you 6 know -- looking at the south elevation, the ridgeline that 7 runs east/west -- you know -- that’s -- that’s what I 8 think the bulk of the mass that you see -- uhm -- you know 9 -- from the street, if that -- if just that ridgeline 10 could be reduced or something I think -- I mean I don’t 11 know. Again, I’m not -- I’m not here to design the 12 project. 13 MS. THOMPSON: Well, it appears that we are 14 stuck on mass and scale, but before -- I don’t want to 15 beat a dead horse but I do want to get an understanding 16 from you guys of -- on relocation, moving the historic 17 resource. What are your -- I support what had been shown 18 today, moving that resource back a foot and a half from 19 where they previously had it. 20 Roger, where do you fall on that? 21 MR. MOYER: I think the relocation needs to be 22 addressed. I think it’s too close to the sidewalk. I 23 think we really need to look at 1.1 and 1.7, 11.3 and 11.4 24 124 and discuss those further if you want to keep going with 1 this but to me, it’s simply too large in mass and scale. 2 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Well -- 3 MR. HALFERTY: -- on my side, Kara, I think the 4 relocation -- I always -- I’m always a proponent about the 5 historic resource being closer to the public view and to 6 the street plan and the sidewalk so, I could support it 7 either way. If you had more separation between the 8 resource and the new addition, I’d be okay with that too. 9 It’s always nice that our historic resources are proud -- 10 you know -- closer to the streets and are more visible and 11 you can see more detail of the resource. So, I think more 12 separation between the resource and the addition actually 13 helps. 14 MR. MOYER: I agree with Jeff on that and I like 15 the separation between the resource and the addition. 16 It’s simply the addition is too large. 17 MR. KENDRICK: I agree with Jeff in concept of 18 making the historic resource proud. I think that this is 19 a proposal that takes this a little too far. I still 20 think it should be farther back. 21 MS. THOMPSON: Sara, did you have a comment 22 here? Okay. So, we’re split on that as well. 23 125 On the demolition front, I do support 1 demolishing the sheds at the rear of the property. I 2 think those are not necessary and that’s appropriate. 3 MR. KENDRICK: Yes. 4 MR. MOYER: I have no problem with demolishing 5 the sheds. 6 MR. HALFERTY: I also agree. 7 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. The rest of the 8 information, the growth management, the affordable housing 9 and the transportation. That’s all based on land use code 10 and I think that we’ve heard from staff and I’ve kind of 11 dived a little deeper into all of that and it’s all code 12 (indiscernible) and I don’t think we can really discuss or 13 tackle that tonight. 14 MR. MOYER: I agree with you on not bringing any 15 of that up. 16 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. 17 MR. HALFERTY: I agree. 18 MS. THOMPSON: All right. So, mass and -- so, 19 it looks like we’re not going to have anything -- we’re 20 not going to have any movement. Is there any way, Roger 21 or Scott, that you could see any movement on this tonight? 22 How -- how in your minds could this move forward or can it 23 not at all? 24 126 MR. KENDRICK: By move forward, do you mean 1 approval? 2 MS. THOMPSON: Or -- uhm -- continuance or what 3 -- what is your thought on what you would want to see for 4 the next steps because we -- uhm -- have to give the 5 applicant something. 6 MR. KENDRICK: You know I think at this point I 7 don’t think anybody -- you know -- wants to, like, throw 8 this away. I think a continuation would be I think in 9 order. 10 MR. MOYER: Yes, I would say continue and 11 obviously, they really need to look at making a smaller 12 project and that would probably mean three units instead 13 of five in my estimation and I think then you’d have a 14 perfect -- they’d have a perfect project. 15 MS. THOMPSON: Amy, did you have something to 16 note or -- 17 MS. SIMON: -- I believe that the applicant 18 wants to speak to the next step in the review process. 19 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Sara, please go ahead. 20 MS. ADAMS: Hi, Kara. I want to thank everybody 21 for all the time that you’ve spent on this project but we 22 respectfully request a vote tonight. A reduction in units 23 is neither justified by the code. It’s not a viable 24 option for this project to remain deed-restricted, 25 127 affordable housing. So, again, we appreciate the time 1 that everyone’s spent on this project. We request an 2 action from HPC on the project tonight and a clear 3 decision so that we can decide the next steps for this 4 project. Thank you. 5 MS. THOMPSON: Thanks, Sara. 6 Okay. So, we need to vote yes or we need to 7 vote no. I’m a yes. I guess we can make a motion and see 8 how that goes but -- uhm -- 9 MR. HALFERTY: I also vote to approve the 10 application with comments that were reflected. We guess 11 we should also mention the number of our application but I 12 could approve the application. 13 MS. THOMPSON: I’ll second. Okay. 14 MS. SIMON: Kara, before you call the question, 15 can I mention that the applicant has volunteered to add 16 language to the resolution -- sorry, I’m trying to pull it 17 up here. 18 MS. THOMPSON: Limit the occupants to no more 19 than one related -- is that the one? 20 MS. SIMON: Yes. 21 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. We can add that as a 22 condition. Condition number -- sorry I don’t have that -- 23 the next condition of the resolution. I mean I feel like 24 that condition -- thank you for bringing it up. I mean it 25 128 addresses the neighbors’ concerns and I do feel like a lot 1 of the neighbors’ concerns can be addressed -- uhm -- with 2 the applicant and I would encourage the applicant to work 3 with the -- with the neighbors on their HOA guidelines to 4 make sure we have happy neighborhood here but that’s out 5 of our purview and we can’t require that. 6 I also want to encourage all the -- all the 7 neighbors to speak to council about the -- the larger 8 scale issues here. We can’t obviously speak to parking 9 but that is -- I live here. We all live in Aspen and it’s 10 an issue all over town. So, I think that’s an appropriate 11 discussion for council. 12 Any other discussion here? 13 MR. HALFERTY: I’ll amend my motion to include 14 resolution. 15 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Scott and Roger, any 16 discussion on the motion that you want to have? No. 17 MR. MOYER: No discussion. That’s fine. 18 MS. THOMPSON: Wes. 19 MR. GRAHAM: Kara. 20 MS. THOMPSON: Oh, who said that? Sorry. 21 MR. GRAHAM: Scott. 22 MR. KENDRICK: Oh, no. 23 MR. GRAHAM: Jeff. 24 MR. HALFERTY: Yes. 25 129 MR. GRAHAM: Roger. 1 MR. MOYER: No. 2 MR. GRAHAM: Kara. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 4 Motion does not pass. So, a 2-2 vote is not an 5 approval or denial. We haven’t done anything here. In 6 order -- is that correct, Amy? 7 MS. SIMON: That’s correct. The applicant is 8 asking you to make a decision so someone is asked to 9 change their position to vote so that there’s at least 10 three people in favor of some motion. 11 MR. HALFERTY: This is why we need more board 12 members. 13 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 14 MR. MOYER: I think we need more members. 15 MR. HALFERTY: That’s what I said. 16 MS. THOMPSON: Well, I would really like to move 17 the application forward but it sounds like it’s not even 18 an option. There’s nothing that we can discuss here 19 tonight. So, we’re going to need a second motion and 20 someone -- Jeff or I are going to have to change our vote 21 in order to get -- to get this to move forward. I mean, 22 Amy, does it even matter at this point? Council’s going 23 to get all of our notes. They’re going to get the 24 original -- the initial vote. 25 130 MS. SIMON: Yes, I think we need maybe if Kate 1 wants to give any advice you certainly can express your 2 position about it but -- 3 MS. THOMPSON: -- we can’t hear you, Kate. 4 MS. JOHNSON: Can you hear me now? 5 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 6 MR. HALFERTY: Yes. 7 MS. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. Under the 8 current code, a motion would have to carry by three votes 9 for action to be taken. There are some appellate 10 procedures in place if one of the members -- you know -- 11 if it gets taken up to council. Council would have the 12 opportunity to review this at that time. 13 You know, Kara, you kind of said does it matter? 14 You know I think that there has to be some foundation for 15 the vote one way or the other. You know the applicant’s 16 been very clear they want action -- you know -- certainly 17 you can take that -- interpret that whichever way you feel 18 is appropriate but we can’t just sort of continue it in 19 the hopes they change enough. You know they’ve asked for 20 us to take action tonight and I just know that three 21 members have to vote to do that. 22 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Well, I think we need to 23 respect the applicant’s wishes in this situation and in 24 131 order to get action, I guess I can begrudgingly adjust my 1 vote and we can see what the applicant does next. 2 So, I need a motion. Scott or Roger. 3 MR. KENDRICK: How would the motion be phrased? 4 MS. THOMPSON: Oh, we would just move to deny 5 the application, I believe. 6 MR. KENDRICK: I move to deny the application. 7 MR. MOYER: I second the motion. 8 MS. SIMON: Kara, I believe that it would be 9 appropriate to, just like in any decision, make some kind 10 of findings. 11 MS. THOMPSON: Uh-huh. Okay. So, I think we’re 12 finding that this is -- we’re moving to deny this because 13 of the mass and scale and the interest -- I think what I’m 14 hearing and I would like Roger and Scott to confirm -- is 15 that a reduction of a story or a reduction -- a 16 significant reduction in the mass of the second structure 17 is what we would be looking for here but that doesn’t seem 18 like that would be feasible to the applicant. 19 MR. HALFERTY: (indiscernible) I would like that 20 too but it doesn’t comply with our guidelines so the 21 reason I’m voting in the affirmative is because it 22 complies with our guidelines. So, I’d like it to be 23 smaller as well but I just -- this is why I’m voting in 24 132 the affirmative for the applicant. I just wanted to put 1 that on the record. 2 MS. THOMPSON: I support that statement. 3 MR. KENDRICK: I’d like to (indiscernible). I 4 (indiscernible) believe it conforms to our guidelines. 5 MS. THOMPSON: Sorry, Scott. Could you repeat 6 that? I did not hear it. 7 MR. KENDRICK: I just wanted to say -- put on 8 record that Jeff’s comment came out as fact but, in fact, 9 it’s opinion. I don’t believe that it applies -- that it 10 complies to our guidelines. 11 MR. MOYER: I don’t either believe it complies 12 with our guidelines. 13 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Wes, can we -- any more 14 discussion here? 15 Wes, can we get a roll call vote please? 16 MR. GRAHAM: Scott. 17 MR. KENDRICK: Yes. 18 MR. GRAHAM: Jeff. 19 MR. HALFERTY: Negative. 20 MR. GRAHAM: Roger. 21 MR. MOYER: Yes. 22 MR. GRAHAM: Kara. 23 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 24 133 MS. ADAMS: Thank you for your time. That’s 1 very disappointing but thank you for the time that you 2 took to review the project. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Sara, for a thorough 4 application. 5 MR. HALFERTY: Thank you. 6 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. We have no more agenda 7 items. So, I move to adjourn the meeting. 8 MR. MOYER: Second the motion. 9 MS. THOMPSON: All in favor. 10 MR. KENDRICK: Aye. Thank you, guys. 11 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you. 12 MS. SIMON: Thank you. Good night, everyone. 13 MR. MOYER: Good night, everyone and thank you. 14 MR. KENDRICK: Thank you. 15 MR. MOYER: It’s a tough one. 16 (Whereupon, this matter was concluded.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 134 TRANSCRIPTIONIST’S CERTIFICATE 1 I, Susan M. Antonelli, do hereby attest that the 2 above and foregoing is a true and accurate transcription 3 pursuant to the quality of the Webex digitally-recorded 4 proceedings to the best of my knowledge, skill and ability 5 of the Aspen Historical Preservation Commission held on 6 February 17, 2021 in Aspen, Colorado. 7 Dated this 17th day of March, 2021. 8 9 10 /s/Susan M. Antonelli____ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25